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

Despite what our Green friend Gareth Hughes said, the economic reality is that this bill had to pass through the House—there is no doubt about that. But I suppose the reason why a number of my colleagues have expressed concern about this bill is that we all know—even the Nats know—that this is really a sloppy way to put legislation in place. It is a very sloppy way to manage something that is very important to our environment.

If we actually have a look at new section 162(5) in clause 4 it says—we are talking about the drilling for gas here; everybody knows what we are talking about—“the activity may continue without a marine consent until the application is decided under section 62 and any appeals are determined.” What this basically says to the people of New Zealand is: “This is going to go ahead, no matter what. Don’t bother appealing because the activity is there and that is the way it is.” I do not think that is a particularly democratic way to do things. There is a lot better way to draft legislation that allows us to get this sort of bill through the House. There is no point in apportioning blame to Shell Todd Oil Services or to the Government—the bottom line is that we have ended in a situation that we have all admitted is suboptimal.

I have heard National members stand up and say congratulations to Scott Simpson on the way that this has been managed. Well, I would say that if the chair was on the ball when the original legislation came through the House, they would have noted—and even the officials would have noted—that this is a glaring admission. You know, one of our largest gas platforms has not got consent and the legislation does not cover this. So I am not too sure what went on in the select committee process, Mr Chair. I am sure if you had been the chair of committee, this would not have happened in any way, shape, or form—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Don’t bring me into it.

—but it is really messy legislation. But it also cuts to the heart of what we believe as a country, and Megan Woods has spoken about this. Our global brand is around our being “clean, green” and “100% Pure New Zealand”. It is what we go out there and market. I mean, the Ministry of Economic Development, or whatever it was called way back when, valued our brand at $20 billion a year. That was in 2005, so I am sure it is worth a lot more than that now. The research also showed that 80 percent of New Zealand companies that seek to engage with overseas markets actually leverage off our brand. So part of this—

💬 Chris Bishop: Where have I heard this before?

That is right, Mr Bishop. You have heard this before because, I think, it is such an important point. The Government keeps missing the mark on it and I just do not get it, because it is so important to our country. What we have done by highlighting this is that, you know, we have worked incredibly hard, and the Labour Government worked incredibly hard to actually develop a regulatory environment that was First World because overseas we are judged on how we manage the regulatory environment and on how big oil companies operate in our exclusive economic zone.

By doing this—by having this sort of legislative burp, I suppose, or misstep—it just says to the world that we are not on top of our game, and that also plays into our global brand of being a fantastic citizen and protector of the environment. We have got to get this sort of thing right, and I say to the Minister who is in charge of this bill—and I understand that it is not the Minister in the chair. He has got his own issues managing a $2 billion, 10-year project; good luck with that one. But I do say to the Minister who is involved with this bill that we have got to do better than this—we really do—as a country, because if we continue to develop legislation in such an important area that does have a major consequence on our global brand, then we will undo a whole lot of work that over the years has led to the reputation that we have got at the moment.

You know, back in the good old days, we were seen as the cowboys of the wild west. You came down here, you did whatever you wanted to do, it did not matter, and then you got out. If we were lucky as a country, it went well, and if we were not lucky, then it did not go well, but who cared? Because we were at the bottom of the Pacific, no one cared. That has changed. The way we do business has changed. The way we do business in this country and the messages that we send to overseas markets have changed, but this sort of legislation takes us back to the bad old days. We have caught it. The fact is, though, as mentioned in the legislation in new section 162(5), it basically says you do not need a consent to do this, so this is going to be retrospective consenting, if in fact there are a whole lot of appeals, and I do not know whether there will be, but if there are—there is nothing good about retrospective consenting in this sort of environment.

The other thing that this does is just give impetus to those—and I am one of them, I must admit—who put up the argument for alternative energies. We have got a good story to go out to the market at the moment. You know, we are at 80 percent renewables in terms of our electricity generation. That is a very good story, but both the National Party and the Labour Party have a target of 90 percent in 10 years. I think we will get there, but this sort of stuff says—

I was very much enjoying my colleague’s peroration there, so apologies to my colleague. This is more of a signalling call. I rise to take a short call in support of this piece of legislation.

I am going to pose a question at the start of this contribution and come back to it in the end. The question is: if a Minister falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, has he really fallen? If the gas stops pumping from an offshore oil platform and no one hears it stop, has it really stopped pumping? The answer to the latter question is that—

💬 Hon Craig Foss: If David stands for leader and no one votes, does it happen?

Mr Foss, that was very Sino of you. The answer to the second question is yes, because if the gas stops pumping, people’s lights will go out, people’s industries will grind to a halt, and people will not be able to do what they need to do to get by. That is the kicker with this bill. We just cannot as a country, on either side of the floor, have a situation where a station that is producing 20 percent of our gas goes offline.

That justifies an intervention that has been brought about because this bill needs to amend section 162 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. The problem, for those who have just joined us, is that—

💬 Chris Bishop: Ha, ha!

Not you, Chris Bishop; you joined us at the last election. I mean people who have just started listening in. Chris Bishop has been here 5 minutes and he thinks he is an expert. Well, you know, that will wear off. That will wear off, Chris, as the guy sitting right behind you will be happy to tell you.

💬 Tim Macindoe: How many do you think have tuned in at this point?

Well, you know, the way the Government has been performing, I would not be surprised if a few have tuned out. But here is why the change is necessary. Poor old Todd has got an appeal under way and the risk for the—

💬 Hon Craig Foss: The Hon Todd.

Maybe not poor, maybe not that old, but it is a figure of speech. So the company has the potential for an appeal, which could interrupt its resource consent under the exclusive economic zone legislation. If it is appealed, the company is held up from operations until the appeal has been heard and granted. That is the catch-22 that this bill is seeking to correct, and fair enough, because we do not want an unintended consequence where a legitimate appeal right results in a pre-emptive cessation of production when it is not required. So that is the problem we are trying to fix.

This, however, is an inelegant solution, for a couple of reasons—inelegant but necessary. No. 1 is that the bill names an individual company. That is bad legislative practice. We ought to be making across-the-board rules, not legislating for individual stuff-ups by Ministers. No. 2 is that it is retrospective. Only in the rarest occasions will Parliament accommodate retrospective change, and generally only when it is citizen-friendly, as this arguably is. No. 3 is that this is ad hoc, not strategic. It does not, as my colleague Stuart Nash said, fit neatly in a plan of an ongoing increase in our energy self-sufficiency. However, it is what it is. Fourthly, of course, it is a patch-up job. It is a fix-up for a ministerial error, which brings me to the first of the two questions.

The Minister falling in the forest, of course, is Nick Smith, deputised today to be as far away from Parliament as he could possibly be, because he has had a right roasting over housing. He is the same Minister who is responsible for the lack of foresight in seeing this appeal provision as a problem while putting the original bill through, so that Parliament now has to arguably waste its time to fix up those mistakes. If a Minister falls in the forest but there is no one there to hear it, has he really fallen? Well, those who might be looking to fill his shoes will know that he has fallen. Can we fix this? Yes we can, yes we will, yes we need to. Should we be here doing this? No, we should not. So it is with some reluctance, but with cooperation, that the Labour Opposition is supporting this bill.

I call Gareth Hughes, and remind the Committee that we are looking for new and novel and creative contributions. [Interruption]

Ha! No pressure—that is right. I rise to support the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill, and I agree with the member David Cunliffe: it is a fix-up job, but it is a fix-up job for Shell Todd Oil Services. Let us be clear: the fact is this company did not get its time lines, despite years of knowing how the legislation worked. As I said in an earlier contribution, it was involved in the select committee process on the original legislation. It had decades of warning of when its permit was going to expire, but before it even put in its application, the company ran off to Cabinet and got it to draft this retrospective legislation to give the company a retrospective consent for its marine application for the Māui gas field. That is why I lay the blame at Shell Todd Oil Services. It should have got its house in order. It should have got its time lines in order. This is a substantial company, after all, and here is Parliament, using its awesome power to pass legislation, fixing it for the company.

Crucially, nowhere in the documentation, nowhere in the select committee process—no one from Shell Todd Oil Services, remember, even fronted to the Local Government and Environment Committee—could actually tell us what the impacts of not passing this legislation were. The Green Party was opposed in the first reading because there were not any arguments for the necessity of passing this legislation. Sure, the platform could have shut down for a short while. It subsequently received its marine consent from the Environmental Protection Authority. We have got substantial gas storage facilities in New Zealand. The spectre of stoves not working, lights not turning on, was raised, but no one can actually explain how that possibly could be, and whether, in fact, the only penalty would be that this company would itself face some financial penalties for not delivering its gas supply contracts. So those are two myths that we would like to challenge.

I would like to turn to why we are supporting this legislation, which is that it was improved substantially in the select committee. The two key areas that were improved were the specified time frames and the completeness of applications. What this bill, effectively, does under the transitional provisions of the original exclusive economic zone legislation is allow a company that has an existing permit that expires to continue for the period for which any appeals might take. One of the crucial problems with the way this amendment bill was originally drafted was that a company could put in an application the day before its permit expired, even if that permit had gone for 30 or 35 years, knowing full well that under this new, amended version of the exclusive economic zone legislation, it could continue for as long as the process took, as long as any future appeals took. That is why Eugenie Sage and I, and other members on the committee, thought it was important that there were some specified time frames around it. There were various choices: 6, 9, 12 months. Six months would have aligned with the Resource Management Act, but the committee, in its wisdom, thought it was good to go to 9 months, which is consistent with the Environmental Protection Authority process around the exclusive economic zone legislation and the implementation of it. We think 9 months is a huge amount of time for a company to get its ducks in a row and make sure it has applied.

Secondly, it was important that the completeness of the application was resolved and clarified in this. What we do not want to see is companies put in incomplete applications right before the deadline. We have seen previous applications—and there has been only a handful in front of the Environmental Protection Authority under this new legislation, but I know that the Trans-Tasman Resources case had three or more full pages of further additional questions requested by the authority’s independent decision-making committee, because the application was not complete. In fact, an impact assessment statement for Anadarko’s drilling off the Raglan coast under the transitional provisions of the original legislation was not even provided to the authority before it gave it the tick of approval to drill what was our deepest-ever well, close to the Māui’s dolphin sanctuary, as a previous member has raised. So we thought it was important that a complete application had to be mentioned, to clarify it—it is crystal clear for everyone involved.

We were opposed to this legislation in the first reading because of the inadequate information provided, because it simply looked like this company was running to the Government before even putting in its application—well, that is what it did; it looked like the company did not get its time lines in order—but since then the bill has been improved. I would like to once again acknowledge the committee members for the constructive, positive relationship on the committee. The legislation has been improved. It is now roughly analogous to similar provisions in the Resource Management Act. There are around three other companies that face this, but we are not talking for decades, so let us hope they do learn the lessons of Shell Todd Oil Services.

I rise to take a call. I will take your guidance, Mr Chairman, and I will try to be new, novel, and creative in my contribution, but I do have to be a tad boring in terms of putting New Zealand First’s position on the record. I do remind some of the—[Interruption] Sorry, Mr Foss. What was that again?

💬 Hon Craig Foss: Irony’s not allowed in here.

Irony is not allowed? We will stay with you. I think you should be at home worrying about your next nomination, actually, Mr Foss, but never mind. I have to put on the record New Zealand First’s position, and forgive me if we take a slightly boring line in some aspects, because there are some things that we would like to mention in respect of the considerations of the bill. There is not a lot I can disagree with in the summations that have been made already.

I went back through, prior to coming down to the Chamber, some of the submissions, particularly the submission from Tanea Tangaroa, who expressed her whānau and hapū’s concerns over the imposition on their rights in terms of determining how the natural resources within the blue waters might be managed, and the affairs and worries about the 55 Māui’s dolphins. I did listen with great interest to the presentation or the submission from the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand, and I was somewhat mystified, to say the least. It seemed to me that the genesis of this piece of legislation actually lies in the legislation that went through in 2013, which all occurred while I was out of the House, having my sabbatical break as the Mayor of Carterton.

What I gleaned from those submissions was that the base legislation that was passed in 2013 was flawed. It had holes in it. The responsibility for that is the National Government’s. In fact, the responsibility for that was one Mr Nick Smith’s. It injected a problem into the legislation, a problem that the oil industry wanted the Government to resolve. Cabinet agreed that the problem that was injected in was not its intent—it was an oversight—and moved to satisfy the oil company’s needs by putting this legislation in front of the House. It is interesting to think back as to where this problem occurred, because in light of what is happening today—in an attempt to be creative and interesting—one cannot escape the obvious conclusion that wherever Nick Smith tends to walk, disaster tends to follow. We are seeing time and time again, whether it was in local government, with the rushed, botched way in which he attacked the Local Government Act, and now with what is happening with Ngāti Whātua and the right of first refusal, and then, on top of that, this piece of legislation, that this House is spending an exorbitant amount of time and taxpayers’ money fixing up legislation that Mr Smith is responsible for.

I am really pleased that on the select committee we have people of the calibre of Scott Simpson and Todd Muller. These are the types of people who could quite easily slot into Nick Smith’s job and do a far better job than that which we are trying to redress right now. There is only one reason we are here doing this. It is because of the Minister’s failings. The question, when we talk about this bill—and we are all unanimously in agreement with the measures that have to be taken. We actually agreed on the amendment to change the application for a marine consent, the lead time, to 9 months. We unanimously agreed on that by sitting down and talking it through—something that the Minister himself is not renowned for. Talking things through is not what he is widely acknowledged for. He does not display the skills of someone who can talk things through, and hence we are fixing his stuff-up.

💬 David Bennett: Why don’t you walk in the park with old Cunliffe?

So Mr David Bennett, who will never be in Cabinet—in fact, Todd Muller will be there before him—interjects across the Chamber, but he does it in a very embarrassed way because he is embarrassed for Nick Smith. He is embarrassed for Nick Smith, but I would only say to Mr Bennett: “You’re backing a dead horse. Get on the right horse. Smith’s gone. The sooner he’s out of his misery, the sooner we’ll stop having to pass legislation like this to fix his muck-ups.”

I will not actually stop with Mr Smith. The oil company Shell Todd Oil Services needs to accept some responsibility itself.

Members, the question is that clauses 2, 3, and 4 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye, those against will say No. The Ayes have it. I will report this bill without amendment presently.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could I just make the point that you have just put the question when not a single National member has spoken, despite the fact that several National members were seeking the call—not too slowly, because they have sought the call before and been overturned.

I take the member’s point. However, the question has been put. The debate was becoming repetitious. I take the point that National members did not receive a call. I take it they are not upset that the matter has now moved on and we are now about to debate the Environmental Reporting Bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just note that you put the question on clauses 2, 3, and 4 of this bill, but there are actually an additional three clauses of the bill—5, 6, and 7. So I am wondering what the Chair’s intention is to do with those clauses of the bill. Maybe a National Party member might like to take a call on one of those clauses.

The member makes an excellent point. The question is that clause 2 stand part. [Interruption] I am sorry. The question is that clause 2 stand part. All those in favour will say Aye—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could I ask you to explain to this Committee, when there are members of all sides of the Committee seeking the call, why you are shutting down the debate, particularly when no Government member has had a chance to speak. And could I also make the point that there was agreement between the parties as to how this debate would be dealt with, and we are within the time frame, and all members expected that the time frame would be observed.

I will take the member’s point. If a member from the Government seeks a call—[Interruption] I call Scott Simpson. [Interruption] I will remind the member seeking the call that we are looking for novel, new, and creative contributions to the debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking a clarification as to procedure. Unanimous as we are with the Government whip on the matter that we are within the bounds of the time that had been informally agreed for this debate and therefore, in principle, that we welcome the opportunity for Government members to make a contribution to the debate, nonetheless your previous ruling was that you had already put the question on clauses 2, 3, and 4, and my good colleague Dr Megan Woods had noted that clauses 5, 6, and 7 were still available for debate. I wonder whether your intention was in fact to carry out the vote that you had put and then to open up debate leniently on the remaining clauses.

In order to be try to be helpful, I recognise that this puts you in a very awkward position as the Chair. It is unusual for a whip to challenge the decision of the Chair, particularly when the question has been put. I worry that that actually might set a precedent. Maybe a way forward might well be that if someone sought leave for an extra call to be given at this point in time, setting aside what is normal rules and conventions and the Standing Orders, that would do it, without the embarrassment of a senior whip being seen to be challenging the authority of the Chair in such a manner.

Can I just make the point that I quite deliberately did not challenge the Chair’s ruling. I used the words “may I draw to your attention” that this had occurred, because I was not seeking to challenge your ruling so much as to express surprise that the question had been put before Government members had taken a call. I believe that the Hon David Cunliffe has correctly discussed the position that we are now in, and I wonder whether, with the agreement of the Committee, we might seek leave.

I can inform the Committee that I have taken advice. I am obviously the author of my own rather public nest, which is not as tidy as it was when we started at 7.30 this evening. I have put those clauses in error as clauses 2, 3, and 4, and having moved to the vote I now need to do that. So my advice is that I need to put the question that clause 2 stand part, and then move through to clause 3 and clause 4.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There are two parts to this point of order. The first is to correct my earlier point of order where I indicated—and it was supported by the Government whip—that in the event that it was clauses 5, 6, and 7, we could treat them separately from 2, 3, and 4. On closer inspection, however, I see that they are subclauses of clause 4 and so cannot be put separately. The advice that we have received is that it may be possible by leave, with your willingness to look leniently at the process and in view of your comment about the nest, to extend the debate on clauses 2, 3, and 4. I would ask you to consider that.

I am sorry but the advice I have had—and I repeat it to the Committee—is that we now need to go through the vote separately on clauses 2, 3, and 4 without further debate, because it has been put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a fresh point of order, and I wish to emphasise that I am certainly not challenging your ruling. I am simply making the point that at the start of this particular debate I sought leave—and it was agreed by the whole Committee—for the debate to be taken as one question but for the votes to be taken separately. Therefore, I believe it is now appropriate for you to take the vote on each clause separately because that was the resolution of the Committee.

I will be taking the votes separately, but I will be moving between the votes on clauses 2, 3, and 4 without further debate.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.