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

I am very pleased to take my final call on this piece of legislation that we have put through and I am very pleased that this is a piece of legislation that has gone through this House relatively quickly. It was introduced only a short time ago, and it has worked its way through the select committee process, and Labour is supporting this legislation, as we have indicated at previous readings. The reason why we are supporting this legislation is that, simply, we had to because this is a fix up of a fix up of a fix up of a blunder by Nick Smith. This is a fix up of a piece of legislation that we should not be using this House time to debate. It is a fix-up piece of legislation that could have been anticipated.

So let me take you through the various things that this legislation does, in case people, over the few days we have had away from this House, have lost sight of the important things.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Could I ask those who are leaving to please do so in a timely manner. It is important that we hear what the speaker is saying.

So what this bill does is it amends section 162 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. In effect, what that does is allow the Māui Gas platform to continue operating. It has just recently, only in the last week or so, or couple of weeks, had its consent approved. But what the original principal legislation of the exclusive economic zone did not do was put a transitional arrangement in place to allow the existing operators, of which there are only four, to come inside the new regulatory regime. So we were faced with the very real prospect at the beginning of this year of a piece of shoddy legislation from Nick Smith that did not allow for the existing operators to come in, and the really real possibility that we would have had to have seen the Māui Gas platform shut down while this was worked through. All of this was entirely predictable.

But what has also been entirely predictable is the passage of this legislation in the House. This is not the first time, as we have talked about in previous contributions, that we have been in this House playing fix up to the fix up to the fix-up legislation on this. In fact, when the principal legislation was first brought to the House and sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee, it took an entire rewrite by the select committee to get that legislation in any kind of shape. It had to come back to the House for something like 14 pages of a ministerial Supplementary Order Paper in order to make it fit for purpose and do what it purported to do. But within only a very short time frame, in the last Parliament we were back in this House playing patch up to that legislation, and here we are again. But what is even more disturbing is that this bill, which was introduced to the House and sent off to the Local Government and Environment Committee, when it got there had some fundamental flaws with it too.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the select committee. I would like to acknowledge the work of the select committee chair, Scott Simpson, but above all I would like to acknowledge the submitters on this bill, because it was the submitters on this bill who have meant that we are not going to be back here in a week, a month, or two or three months playing fix up to the fix up to the fix up to the fix-up legislation on another Nick Smith blunder. What the original legislation that Nick Smith tabled in the House did was leave things entirely open-ended. We were putting in place transitional arrangements to bring only four operators into a regulatory regime. Māui Gas platform’s consent expires at the end of June of this year, but the ability of the fourth and final of these operators to operate under the environment that existed before the passage of the exclusive economic zone legislation does not run out until 2032. What the initial legislation that was tabled did was offer an open-ended time frame to those operators. There was no onus as to when it was that they needed to have their consents in by. This is the standard of work we have had from this Government on this piece of legislation.

What this legislation does is it creates a bypass for the existing operators to say: “OK, you were operating under the Crown Minerals Act and various other pieces of legislation prior to the passage of the exclusive economic zone legislation. What we’ll do is create a way for you to come in to the new regulatory regime. You need to have your consent in place and you need to transition in.” But it was only the work of the select committee and only the very fine submissions we heard from a number of submitters that pointed out that the legislation we had in front of us put absolutely no parameters around when it was that one of those operators had to have their consents filed by. So we were faced with the real prospect of consent-holders whose consents expire in 2032—quite some time away, when there is not a real rush and urgency around the time frame. We were faced with the prospect of those operators being able to not put their consent application in until the day their consent expired or even before.

But what the work of the select committee did was look at three options: 6, 9, and 12 months for what is a reasonable time frame for one of these existing operators to have applied for a consent. We went through a range of options and looked for alignment with other legislation. We settled on 9 months because not only did it align well with other pieces of legislation in this space but also it was practical around the amount of time it will take for a consent to be processed. It is not only the consent being processed, of course—that is one part of it—but what was putting the Māui platform really at risk was the spectre that we may indeed have appeals to that and that operator would not be able to operate while those appeals are heard. So this legislation brings the time period far more into line with what we see under the Resource Management Act, although there is not total alignment. But it has brought it far more into alignment with that.

It is of concern to us that there was a lucky catch by the select committee on ministerial incompetence from Nick Smith and that, through his office, a piece of legislation like that could land on the Table in this House, and then could be sent to a select committee. I know that it is the job of select committees to examine legislation, and we did support this legislation at its first reading. We said it was a piece of legislation that we wanted to look at very closely when it went to the select committee. We wanted to look for the fish-hooks. But when it comes to putting in place a regulatory regime that is going to govern something that actually could potentially have turned off over 25 percent of the gas supply for New Zealand, not to mention a number of jobs being put on the line while the appeals were heard, is not an acceptable standard from a Government.

It is yet another example of a Government that is failing to meet the needs of ordinary New Zealanders when it is failing in the most fundamental role, and that is to table legislation that is fit for purpose and is going to do what it purports to do. It shows a Government that it out of touch. Its members think: “Oh, well, it doesn’t really matter that we could see the Māui Gas platform close down. It might be a loss of a bit of natural gas.” It would be all those people whose jobs are put on the line. This is a distracted Government that is making mistakes. It is prone to blunders, and, lo and behold, who do we find at the centre of this blunder? The “Minister of Blunders” himself, Nick Smith. It is sloppy that this legislation got to this House in this form. This could literally have been the Government that failed to deliver a brighter future when the lights went out because we shut down one of our major energy sources in this country. We expect more.

But we are supporting this legislation. This is a problem that does need to be fixed. It is yet another error in an error-prone piece of legislation. We will be supporting it, and, once again, I would like to acknowledge the very important role that those submitters played when they came to our select committee and made sure that this was legislation that we did not have to come back to and, in only a few weeks, fix up another Nick Smith blunder. Thank you.

I rise to speak in the third reading debate on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill in the name of my friend and colleague Dr Nick Smith, the Minister for the Environment, and I do so with great pleasure. As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I was able to work diligently and carefully with other hard-working members of the committee, and we were able, I think, to do as the previous speaker has just indicated—bring back to the House a piece of legislation that is better than the legislation that was introduced at the first reading.

I would like to spend just a minute both acknowledging and, I guess, criticising, to a degree, the contribution of the previous speaker. Dr Megan Woods is a valuable and diligent member of the committee, and usually she makes a very good and energetic contribution, as she has in the debate this afternoon. Listening to her, one would have to think that some great, terrible misdeed has actually occurred here, when, in fact, there was simply nothing done to protect our exclusive economic zone during 9 long years of a Labour administration—her predecessors. I accept fully that that member was not in Government or in Parliament during those 9 long years and so has no personal responsibility, but for her to stand up and wax eloquent about the shortcomings of this Government on legislation that has so well protected our exclusive economic zone rings a little bit hollow and strikes a sharp tone.

Energy is absolutely essential to every aspect of our modern daily life. We use energy in every sphere of human activity here in the country, from the north to the very deep south, and everybody is involved, as an energy user, in some shape or form. Energy is vital for our factories, our hospitals, our transportation, the production of chemicals and fertilisers, manufacturing, construction, travel, heating, cooking, and pretty much every aspect of our day-to-day lives. We in New Zealand have been fortunate to have always had a secure source of energy, with the vast majority of our electricity being produced from renewables, but, occasionally, we require gas to make up a shortfall when there has been a period of low rainfall. Back in the 1970s, because of the development work done on the Māui platform, we were fortunate, as a nation, to discover that we had significant oil and gas reserves off the coast of Taranaki. This bill provides the Shell Todd Oil Services organisation with continuity by allowing its operations, which have been working very successfully off the coast of Taranaki for nearly 50 years now—in a very sensible and safe way, I might add—to continue that process and to continue making a very significant contribution to the energy requirements and needs of us as a nation.

A marine consent is required under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, and it is required so that organisations such as Shell Todd Oil Services are able to continue their extractive businesses. As I have said, they have been doing that for a long number of years now, based in that oil-rich region of Taranaki, on the west coast of the North Island. Shell Todd Oil Services is a business that is owned by Shell Petroleum Mining Co. and Todd Petroleum Mining Co., which each hold a 50 percent stake in the company. During those more than 50 years of operations, Shell Todd Oil Services has set incredibly high and stringent operational, environmental, and safety benchmarks, and they are leaders in the New Zealand oil and gas industry. What this bill means is that the marine consent—which, subsequently, has been granted by the Environmental Protection Authority since the introduction of this bill—will allow the company to continue operating beyond 27 June of this year. That was not the case when the bill was first introduced, and had we not passed this legislation prior to the end of the month, then the simple reality is that production would have needed to cease on the site and up to 20 percent—maybe it is more than 20 percent—of our energy needs as a nation would have been put at risk. In fact, now that the application has been granted, there is still a requirement for this legislation to pass before the 27th of the month in order to cover the situation of an appeal being lodged to the provision of that consent being issued. So this is why this legislation is still required.

In her speech just a few minutes ago, Dr Megan Woods made mention of the work done at the Local Government and Environment Committee. As chair of the select committee, I also want to acknowledge the work done by committee members, and I also acknowledge with grateful thanks the five submitters who presented on the bill, because they did make good points. This was an example of a select committee working as it should in order to ensure that a better outcome occurs. The Local Government and Environment Committee examined the bill very carefully, and we examined the amendments that had been put before us, and then we listened carefully to the points that the submitters made. The net result of that deliberation was that an amendment to clause 4 was recommended by the committee, which would provide for a replacement section 162(5), to specify that the existing petroleum operators must lodge a marine consent application and have it fully accepted by the Environmental Protection Authority at least 9 months before either the expiry of their permit or their privilege to extract gas or oil.

We did consider a number of alternatives to the 9-month time frame. We looked at 6 months, we looked at 9 months, and we looked at 12 months, and each option was considered by the committee. Eventually, we settled on 9 months as, I think, a reasonable compromise. In a second reading speech, my colleague Todd Muller, the deputy chair of the committee, made the point that any corporate employee worth his or her salt would simply never allow a situation to arise where the ability to trade and to operate their business was put in jeopardy by not having their consent in place and in full prior to that privilege or permit expiring. I think he made a good point when he raised that matter, so we have stuck—sorry, “stuck” is probably not the right word. We have now included, as part of this legislation, a clause that ensures that it is codified that there is a 9-month window and that businesses operating in the area must have that done before the 9 months are up.

We looked at further amending clause 4 to include a further change to section 162(5) to clarify that those existing mining activities would need to have the applications filed 9 months before their privilege came to an end, and that it must be, in filing, acceptable. It must be in a format that is acceptable and accepted by the Environmental Protection Authority as being in full. I think those changes made at the select committee were, in fact, very good changes. They were common sense, sensible changes, and the committee acted, I think, in a very prudent and diligent way. We worked well together. As I said, Shell Todd Oil Services has now actually been granted its permit to continue production, but there is still a chance that there may be an appeal, and that is why this bill is important. We simply could not find ourselves, or put ourselves as a nation, in a position where up to 20 percent of New Zealand’s current gas supply would be uncertain in any way. This bill will not change anything for existing operators other than allow Shell Todd Oil Services to continue production, pending any appeal that may yet be lodged. It is a good piece of legislation. It is a good piece of legislation to amend an even better principal Act, and it has, I think, good support across the House. I think that this bill will be an example of how this legislature works collaboratively and congenially to achieve good outcomes for the country. It is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

I rise to speak in favour of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. Scott Simpson, the last National MP who stood up, said that this bill had wide support across the House and it was a fine piece of legislation that amended an even better piece of legislation. Let me put the record straight: we are supporting this piece of legislation out of absolute economic necessity. We think this is a very bad way to draft legislation, and we think that the original legislation was an absolute mess.

This is not the way to draft legislation, and when that last MP, who is the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, stood up he said that it is vital that we support New Zealand’s economic sustainability. We agree with him: that is why we are supporting it. But another thing that is absolutely vital is the right of New Zealanders, under a democratic process, to appeal. What this bill does, in essence, is wipe away that ability to appeal. What this does is force a piece of legislation through. It is not under urgency, but it is urgent, because if this legislation is not put through, and if the Māui Gas pipeline is not allowed to go ahead, then there will be catastrophic consequences for the economy. We did have an incident when the Māui Pipeline closed down. What happened was it cost about $40 million a day over 5 days, so we are talking about $200 million for just 5 days. This is why it is important that it does go through, but this is a very, very sloppy piece of legislation.

It is one of these things that seem to be creeping in a little bit to this Parliament, and it makes me feel very uncomfortable. What we seem to be doing a lot of is amending legislation—and I have spoken on a couple around veterans’ affairs and around superannuation—that has been before the House in very recent times, because of sloppiness in the way that it went through the select committee. When I hear people stand up and say: “That chair did a great job for the select committee.”, I beg to differ, because if the chair of the select committee that put through the original exclusive economic zone legislation had picked this up—if the MPs and the officials had picked this up—then we would not need to be here. I mean, we can blame Shell Todd Oil Services—it is a convenient thing to do. I do not blame Shell Todd Oil Services; I just think this whole mess could have been avoided if we had done things well.

The other thing that really concerns me about this piece of legislation is that it plays into the sort of global brand we are trying to develop, and that is on two points. First and foremost, gone are the days when New Zealand was seen as the cowboys of the wild west. In the 1980s we were viewed by the Americans, by the Brits, and by Europe as the cowboys. They came over here and there was insider trading. They ran roughshod over legislation in all manner of things, which, thank goodness, is now illegal and no longer happens, but it used to. What this does is erode our global brand just a little bit by saying: “You know what? It is sloppy legislation. We don’t know how to craft bills that allow something as important to our economy as the Māui gasfield to go through, and it is sloppy.” This is not the sort of message that we want to send to international investors who are coming across to our country to explore our oilfields, or to work with our natural gas, or to put up windmills, or to invest in other forms of energy. This piece of legislation says: “You know what? If they get it wrong in New Zealand, don’t worry. They will just legislate something through. It’s how they work in New Zealand.” That used to be the way and it should no longer be the way, and that is why this really concerns me.

The other thing is that we are trying to build a global brand around “clean, green” and “100% Pure”. In fact, it is the brand we go out to the world with. This started in 1984 when David Lange said no to nuclear ships. I think it was a completely unintended consequence, actually, but suddenly those around the world stood up and said: “Goodness me, that country actually stands for something.”, and ever since 1984 we have stood for something as a nation. We go to the world with this “clean, green” brand that is “100% Pure”. The study done by—I think it was Deloitte; it may have been PricewaterhouseCoopers—one of those big consultancies, anyway, said that 80 percent of New Zealand businesses that seek to engage in the export trade leverage off our international brand. The Ministry of Economic Development, when it existed, tried to quantify the value of this brand and it said it was worth about $20 billion. But if we devalue this brand—and this goes a little bit into this—then what we end up with, and what we end up as, is just another small economy trading commodities into a shrinking global market place.

That is the last thing we can afford to do, because our global brand is one of the very few things we have got that cannot be reproduced in the backstreets of Shanghai or in an office block in Mumbai. It is our unique selling point and it is our global point of difference. Anything—anything—that seeks to damage that brand or tarnish that brand must be banished, and one of the things that I think this Government has done very poorly over the last 7 years is damage our brand. Let me give you one example—and this sort of plays into the whole energy sector—and that is global warming. It does not matter whether you support action on global warming because there is a beachfront property you own and, if sea levels rise by a metre, you are going to lose that property, or whether you want to save polar bears, or whether you want to save the world—it does not matter. The reason why I think it is so important is that, again, it plays into the global consciousness of what New Zealand stands for.

We used to be leaders on this. Under the Clark Government we were out there leading the debate on the global stage, and now we are seen as laggards. We are going to go to Paris and we are going to be absolutely caned, and rightly so—and rightly so—not only because of how we have let our global position slide but because we have actually let the reality of what we once stood for slide as well. We have to stand for something.

There are a couple of other points that I would like to make, which I think the previous National MP was a little disingenuous around. There is something called the Energy Trilemma Index, and it is put out by—I think the organisation is called the Global Energy Council. What it does is measure three very important energy variables that go into making up a global ranking for our country. We actually came in at 10th in the world, which is very, very impressive, but part of the reason for that is our political stability and our economic strength. You would get that under any Government; it is just what happens in a highly functional democracy like we have. But the interesting thing is that in energy security we are 16th, up from 19th, but in energy equity we have dropped from 18th down to 28th. What energy equity is is basically the ability of our citizens to afford energy, and this plays into the whole fuel poverty argument. What fuel poverty is is the ability of people to afford electricity in order to heat their homes in the middle of winter, and we have a real problem with this. When we are 28th in the world in terms of energy equity, we have a problem that we really need to address.

The other one is environmental sustainability. Again, this plays into our global brand. We have gone from 36th to 42nd in the world in terms of environmental sustainability with regard to our energy sector. That says to me that we need to work a lot harder in how we actually manage our energy sector. Now, electricity generation is a very good story—there is about 80 percent renewable. The Labour Party, and I think even the Government, have bought into the target of 90 percent renewables by 2025. It is an admirable target, and, again, it is a great story. But when you combine it with the global perception of how we are doing, it is not particularly flash.

I am going to bring this back to the legislation. It all ties in with this piece of legislation. In a way, this legislation epitomises how we are treating our global brand at the moment, and the lackadaisical way that we are saying: “It’ll all be right. Don’t worry about it. If we get it wrong, we will legislate it.” The previous speaker, Scott Simpson, highlighted, and I have re-emphasised, how important passing this legislation is for our economic well-being. We cannot have the Māui gasfield going down, because a cost of $40 million a day is unconscionable. The fact that this gasfield employs 300 people in Taranaki shows that it is a vital part of regional infrastructure, but this—and, I think, even members on that side of the House will admit this; well, they should admit it—is not a good way to pass legislation. It does not play into how we see ourselves as a country. It is not a good way to sell ourselves internationally, either as a global brand or in terms of how we do business or how we manage our energy sector.

Labour is supporting this not because we think it is a good piece of legislation but because we think it is a vital part of our economic infrastructure. We would really request that we do not see any more pieces of this legislation, and that the Government gets its legislation right before it brings it back to the House. Thank you very much.

It is a great pleasure and an honour to rise and speak in support of a very important bill. It was disappointing that in the speech of the previous member, Stuart Nash, the only relevance to the bill was his getting the title correct; everything after that had no relevance whatsoever. So I will attempt to go a bit further. I will mention the title, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill—third reading. This bill is about business continuity. It is about a Government that cares, that believes in New Zealand, and that believes in a productive economy as well as protecting the environment. That is why New Zealanders backed us last September—why they supported us. They trust us; they know we are responsible. Today the guilt and the envy are palpable in the House.

Can I acknowledge first the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his work in this area, and the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Scott Simpson. The guilt and the envy are palpable—the guilt of a Labour Government that, over 9 years, did absolutely nothing in this space, and the embarrassment that that causes them. And for the Greens: the envy and resentment of our delivering what they wanted to deliver. For the Greens, it is like the player who gets subbed off halfway through a game, resenting that they never really performed at any sort of level. For the Greens, it is like being the water boy who is always looked over for selection but is holding on that one day he will get the nod—the guilt, the embarrassment, the envy, and the resentment.

There is, with this Government, a lot happening in the environmental space—in the blue-green space. It was great to see this legislation go through the legislative process, from the first reading, where there were some concerns, conspiracy stories, to the way the bill was managed through the select committee process, where we heard about five submissions, each of which had very valid points, which the select committee had to think through. There were very collegial discussions, and in the end, this legislation was amended through the second reading, and now we have this final reading.

We are talking about a sector where there are very real consequences. We do know from the regulatory impact statement that if Shell Todd Oil Services were to cease operations in the Māui field, it would have a significant impact on New Zealand’s economy. We are talking not only about the economy but also about New Zealand’s well-being. What we do know is that the Māui field produces about 26 percent of New Zealand’s gas supply, and it is a big employer in the Taranaki region, employing about 300 people. So it is right that this Government work to protect a valuable sector of the New Zealand economy, and a valuable employer. We do know that we have the old Pareto ratio of 80:20 in this case. This field produces around 80 percent of the gas consumed and it provides for about 20 percent of sites—petrochemical sites and electricity generation, as well as large industrial users in our export economy.

We as New Zealanders do know that it is the export economy that drives this country forward and that improves the well-being of all New Zealanders. The regulatory impact statement outlines also that a previous outage in 2011 cost the economy $200 million—that was $40 million a day. So we do know that it is right not only to grow the economy but also to protect our environment. That is this National Government’s approach—the blue-green approach. I do not see this approach more than in my electorate of Waimakariri, where the residents and constituents understand this. It is a great area for primary production and produces a lot of export goods. We know that it is about improving the quality of water, water storage, and increasing the productivity of the land. So it is great to see this Government delivering in this space.

A key part of this bill was around the specified time frames for Shell Todd Oil Services to apply for a marine consent. What this committee did, quite rightly, was to work through those issues. There was a proposal for 6 months, which would have put it in line with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, the Crown Minerals Act, and the Resource Management Act. Six months looked pretty credible. There were proposals for 9 months and 12 months also. Twelve months did seem like a long time, but the reason why this committee settled on 9 months was the 140 statutory days needed for this application process, as well as time for appeals and objections. So this committee did settle on 9 months.

And why is it right that we have time for appeals and objections to take place? Some of the submitters were concerned that this might allow for an open-ended application process. But that is only right, because every New Zealander expects to be heard; they want to be part of the process. Only a country like New Zealand allows every New Zealander the right to submit and to present their submission orally. So if that takes time, then so be it, and it is great that everyone will have the time to make a submission during this process. It was great to see the legislative process working its way through as the committee decided between 6, 9, and 12 months. We had a submission from Frack Free Kapiti and Beyond. It was very concerned about the open-ended process that I have just talked about. So it is great to see that submitters can be involved.

A key part of this bill is clause 4, which amends section 162 of the Act and is around the inflexibility of this section. What we wanted to do was make the Act flexible in order to allow these petroleum companies to fit into this new regime and to continue operating when their previous permit has expired. I think that is right, because these large petroleum operators needed business certainty and business continuity. You could ask any small, medium, or large business throughout New Zealand, and they are all about business continuity. Even the farmers in my electorate measure themselves against reliability—reliability of water to feed the stock and to produce what they can. So it is quite right that we are supporting business continuity with this piece of legislation.

I also highlight that I think the submitters to this bill got it right. They were very concerned that this petroleum operator knew about the issue, did not get its act together, and should have provided more information up-front. I think that most New Zealanders are pretty astute, and it is pretty hard to argue against that. When we heard submissions from the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand, which was representing the petroleum operators and other individuals and the private sector, I urged them to be involved in this process a lot earlier. There are now clear time lines and expectations of being a bit more interventionist with petroleum companies, to ensure that they get these applications in on time.

I wrote down a bit of checklist in my first reading speech, and I think it is still very relevant. I had a look at it, and it says: “Does this bill support our fourth-biggest export commodity earner?” Yes. “Does this bill avoid the closure of a gasfield at $40 million a day?” Yes. “Does this bill protect 300 jobs?” Yes. “Does this bill support existing operators to transition into the exclusive economic zone Act?” Yes. “Does this bill protect $800 million worth of taxes and royalties from operators in this sector, which pays for public services such as schools, hospitals, and roads?” Yes. “And—very important for the Greens—does this bill support the retiring of coalmining by supporting gas exploration and exporting?” Yes. So, very much like myself and Ron Mark, this bill is small and simple but very effective, and I support it in this House.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. In the series of debates on this legislation, there has been a lot of talk about gas, oil companies, and economic development, but what I have not heard about is the environment—the actual place that we are talking about, which is the exclusive economic zone. It has been entirely absent.

We are incredibly lucky in New Zealand. People do not often think about New Zealand as a super power. Obviously, we are a pretty small, low-population country, but when it comes to the marine environment, we are a super power. We have got the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world—an incredible environment. We have got maybe 1,000 undersea mountains, and incredible endemisms—species that live here and that do not live anywhere else on the planet. We have got huge resources, huge fish stocks, some incredible flora and fauna down there, and some things that scientists advise us we know so little about. In fact, less than 0.41 percent of this is actually protected in marine reserves. So, sure, although we are talking about a bill that is granting transitional drilling powers to one particular oil company, let us not forget what we are talking about, which is this large, rich, diverse, thriving marine environment, which we still know so little about. More people have been to the surface of the moon than have been to the bottom of the deep ocean. It is the world’s second-deepest submarine trench and a place that most likely none of us will get to in our lives, but one that is deserving of our protection.

When you listen to the previous speaker, Matt Doocey, you would think he was Al Gore or St Francis of Assisi, or that he had just driven here in his electric hybrid from some adventures on the Rainbow Warrior, as if he were some sort of environmental champion. Let us not forget, though, that what the Government did was, basically, to build on the work of the previous Government in finally getting around to a Resource Management Act for the sea. This was something that the Green Party had been calling for since we were first elected to Parliament under our own steam in 1999. What we got was far short of what the country actually needed or what was happening in other world-leading countries around the world, which was a comprehensive oceans policy. What we got was resource management for the sea, tilted in favour of extractive industries.

It has been interesting to follow this process in this House and in the courts over many years, and here we are with another iteration. We saw the original legislation passed, I believe, in 2012. It had to be amended to fix up some problems. I followed the High Court case when Anadarko was taken to court. I submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority on both the Trans-Tasman Resources and Chatham Rock Phosphate proposal applications, which were thrown out. And here we are now seeing yet another amendment to this legislation. What we are not talking about is improving the legislation. We are not talking about fixing it—in terms of some of those glaring gaps—or about how we move forward to take advantage of and protect the fourth-largest marine environment in the world. What this legislation does is patch up a loophole—a loophole that could have been identified by officials or Government Ministers originally.

But the blame should lie, fairly, at Shell Todd Oil Service’s door, which is a company involved in the process surrounding the passing of the original legislation and which has operated in New Zealand for decades, which is worth tens of hundreds of millions of dollars, which knew its permit was expiring—it had, ultimately, decades of notice—and which did not get its application in on time. As someone who hears often about personal responsibility, I ask why we are not applying it in this case. We urge personal responsibility for beneficiaries, but when it comes to big corporates, why did we not ask them why they did not get their paperwork and application in on time? Why was the executive not asking the company why it was lobbying it to pass a law of Parliament—a statute—before it even got its application in? It does look a bit cart before the horse when you have a company that has not made an application and runs instead to Cabinet, which decided, in fact, on 8 December to pass this legislation before the company had even got its application in, when, ultimately, it had had years and decades of notice. That is why the Green Party opposed the first reading of this legislation. It really did look like one law for oil—a law for a single corporate.

Many members are concerned about crony capitalism, or support only for a few corporates with relations with whoever is in Government, and this is something that we were concerned about. Ultimately, there are a whole host of legislative solutions that this House should be taking to grow our economy, to build a more prosperous economy, to grow jobs, and to protect our environment. It is not this choice between one or the other. In fact, protecting our environment is our key to our economic prosperity. But we are not debating those things; we are debating passing a law to help a company that did not get its application in on time despite all the notice.

However, we were pleased to note the constructive, positive atmosphere in the Local Government and Environment Committee. We would like to acknowledge, once again, the chair, Mr Simpson, the members, and the five submitters. We have made improvements, and that is why, subsequently, we are changing our vote to support this law. Ultimately, what this law does is a single thing: allowing transitional provisions in the case of an appeal by a marine consent applicant whose permit expires. We will not see this in effect for decades, given the other applicants with marine permits will not be applying for marine consents for some decades. So we are talking about transitional provisions, something analogous with what we see already in the Resource Management Act, and something non-controversial, but we have managed to clarify it by adding new section 162(5), which allows the 9-month or 140 statutory day - consistency with the existing primary legislation, in order to incentivise companies to actually get their applications in on time. If this amendment had not been made, there would have been an incentive for a marine applicant, or the oil company in this example, to put its application in the day before its permit expires because it knows that it is protected by statute and that for the course of the process through the Environmental Protection Authority and any future appeals it would be protected and its activity could continue.

Secondly, in the same section, we sought clarification around what an application meant. The way it was drafted, it was dubious and could have been challenged in court. By clarifying that it must be a complete application, which gives the Environmental Protection Authority the powers to request additional information such as an oil spill impact assessment in the case of an oil industry company applicant, there is certainty. It must be a complete application. It is important, because I am aware of a few applications, despite the small number to the Environmental Protection Authority, where considerable information has been presented. So we have signalled our concerns. We identified that we would be lodging a protest vote in the first reading. We are happy and would like to acknowledge the work of the members on the committee to improve the bill. That is why we will be changing our vote.

Let us get around to having the real conversation, which is about how we look after the fourth-largest part of marine space in the world, which is owned by a company. We had concerns with the original exclusive economic zone legislation—that it was too focused on extractive industries. At the time, I called it an “easy drilling bill” because of how much weaker it was than the Resource Management Act and because of how the precautionary principle was not carried over despite the international importance of this principle—it was only a precautionary principle. So we have got concerns that we are not protecting our taonga, our heritage, our beautiful natural environment.

So what is next? What we need to have a conversation about is how we see greater marine protection across the water out from 12 nautical miles in the exclusive economic zone. It is a scandal that in 2015 we still cannot create marine reserves in the exclusive economic zone, and that is why we have, in total, less than half of 1 percent of our waters protected in marine reserves. What we need to be doing is taking a smart approach. What we should be undertaking is a spatial-planning approach to our marine environment and having those conversations about where the special protected areas are, where the areas are that we need to find out more information, where the go areas are for extractive industries, where the no-go areas are. What we have seen under the current legislation is two companies, Trans-Tasman Resources and Chatham Rock Phosphate, investing tens of millions of dollars and having their applications thrown out from the Environmental Protection Authority.

I personally submitted against them because of the huge environmental consequences they had. But it is unfair, I believe, for these applicants when they lack certainty. That is why I am calling for a seabed moratorium. We should actually undertake some of the fundamental scientific questions and undertake the spatial planning so that we actually know what is down there in the go and no-go areas when these companies apply. Who knows whether they will have a case in the future or in a different location, but when they are literally throwing tens of millions of dollars away because of a flawed process, I think it is in everyone’s interest to work together to undertake this policy.

Just lastly, instead of looking at individual species under the quota management system or individual areas in isolation, we should, in fact, be taking an ecosystem approach. We are calling for a spatial-planning, ecosystem approach, and greater protection. These are what are going to protect our shared—

I am sorry. The member’s time has expired.

I am pleased to be able to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and make what will be the final contribution to this piece of legislation, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I think that the debate so far has pretty much traversed everything that could be said about what is quite a small bill. It seems to occupy a lot of the House’s time for its size but, clearly, the bill amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. I remind the House of that because that is actually where the problem was created, in case people have forgotten that.

New Zealand First acknowledges that our exclusive economic zone is one of the largest in the world and, together with our extended continental shelf, is about 21 times the size of our land mass. That places huge responsibility on this nation in terms of how it manages its resources within that sphere. So for legislation that seeks to manage the environmental impact of industrial activities in our oceans it is absolutely crucial that it be right and, hopefully, that it be right the first time round in order to save everybody a lot of heartache and, actually, to ensure productivity in this House is maintained at a higher level than this bill might suggest it is being.

When it was introduced by the Minister for Land Information on behalf of the Minister for the Environment into the House it was stated that “This bill will ensure that when operators apply for a marine consent for their existing production activities, they will be able to continue operating as they have done for the last 40 years until their marine consent application is decided on by the Environmental Protection Authority.” That was the aim and the purpose. I want to go one step further. The thing that I found interesting is that, as the Minister for Land Information said in her first reading speech, the Government would have preferred that Shell Todd Oil Services had applied in sufficient time, so that this bill was not needed. That is a really interesting statement, because although I myself and New Zealand First were a little critical of Shell Todd Oil Services for not actually getting its application in early, it also became clear to me as we made our way through the legislation and through select committee deliberation that it was not entirely the fault of Shell Todd Oil Services. The problem was actually injected into the original legislation either by the oversight or incompetence of the Minister Nick Smith.

I applaud the Government members of the committee for the way in which they diligently go about their work. I specifically want to acknowledge and applaud their ability to listen, to argue, to discuss, and to amend a bill where they too accept that there is a sensible change that can be made for the benefit of the oil exploration companies. And I do think that I will also applaud their level of loyalty to a Minister who consistently and persistently seems to charge out of the blocks, waving his flag and telling the nation that he is doing good work for it, only to trip, stumble, fall, and break his nose at the taxpayers’ expense—and we end up back in the House redressing. I have to say that when I look at this legislation I cannot help but be mindful of the debacle in Auckland with the housing issue: the same Minister, again. And then I think back to my time as the Mayor of Carterton and seeing the absolutely appalling way that same Minister handled legislation in the local government amendment bill that went through a couple of years ago.

It was the same act: wave it around, we are doing the country a favour, this is going to be environmentally good for the country, this is going to help the oil exploration companies get on with their work, protect the environment, and protect the resources. OK—then bang, it falls over, and here we are back in the House. I just wonder, loyalty aside, on the back of this little debacle, how long we will have to endure until we see someone like Scott Simpson move up the ranks and take Nick Smith’s job, and allow him to quietly, with dignity, move off into the ether and into retirement, because this, actually, is another one of his errors and his flaws.

I have spoken about the amendment, so I will not dwell on that further. I just want to thank the Government members for listening to the debate and for also coming to the conclusion that not only is this good for the Government, it is actually good for the industry itself—giving it that extra time. I go back to the departmental report, where it was actually recommending 6 months right from the get-go, and yet the committee agreed unanimously that 9 months would be better for all in terms of that amendment in clause 4 to section 162 of the principal Act.

The submitters were interesting. It is interesting that, I think, we actually had only one submission in favour of the legislation, which naturally came from the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand. We had two groups opposed to the legislation, Frack Free Kapiti and Oil Free Otago, along with Miss Linda Hill. We had one from Tanea Tangaroa, who, although she expressed her outrage on behalf of her people, her hapū, as to the way in which oil exploration is handled in general within New Zealand waters and particularly within their rohe, did not actually make it clear and go so far as to oppose the legislation. Well, she certainly did not say those words in her submission.

But the concerns against were interesting, and I think most of them were within the range or the sphere of Green Party thinking. They were concerned about giving existing operators legal privilege. Oil Free Otago opposed for a range of reasons, all environmental. Miss Linda Hill, again, opposed for environmental reasons. But it is interesting that at the end of the day, even with Tanea Tangaroa who had a lot of cultural concerns and expressed those on behalf of her whanaunga and her hapū, here we sat at the end of the day with a committee that had a number of us from across party lines, all of Māori descent, looking at it and deciding that this legislation in its amended form should go forward. All of us agreed at the end of the day, despite the concerns raised by people opposed to it on environmental grounds. The Green Party also came in behind and are now supporting the legislation.

I myself had to take a step back, because I was strongly critical of Shell Todd Oil Services at the outset, because I think it could have got its act together. But I do accept now that it is not entirely its fault. If the original piece of legislation had been a little tighter and more comprehensive, and had been given a little more thought, this piece of legislation would not have been necessary. In summary, good work by the select committee: good amendments. It is a very small piece of legislation, but a very important piece of legislation in terms of how we protect, yet take economic advantage from, our oceans. I will just put on the record that New Zealand First supports this third reading and the passage of this bill, and welcomes the fact that all other parties, despite their initial views and concerns, particularly environmental, have likewise come to the same conclusion. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this third reading debate on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill—that is quite a mouthful. I would like to begin by thanking Ron Mark, the member who just resumed his seat, for his gracious comments about the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. If I could also add my support for what he said, it is a great pleasure to work under the chairmanship of the member for Coromandel, Mr Scott Simpson, who does, I think, approach these matters in a very cross-party and multipartisan way to get the best-possible results, putting aside the politics of these things.

This is a very important issue for New Zealand, and I have to disclose, I suppose, on the record that I did my Business and Parliament Trust work placement recently with Todd Energy, a very fine company and a New Zealand - owned business. It is probably the largest New Zealand - owned private business operating in this country. Todd Energy has been producing energy in the Taranaki region for 40 years now, and has done so in a very safe and effective manner—environmentally sustainably in terms of certainly not producing any spills or environmental degradation—but also with great regard for the safety of its staff and the people who work in its facilities.

This is a very important issue for New Zealand because this is a field that produces 20 percent of our natural gas supply. This is not just what we cook with and what perhaps heats our water for our morning showers if we use gas as a consumer, but whilst doing my placement with Todd Energy I had the opportunity to see how else the gas is used. It is exported, and is a valuable export commodity for New Zealand. Not only does it earn us those export dollars but it is often shipped up into the Pacific region, to places that do not have the same energy resources that we do. It is very important for those small economies.

Also it is used in the peaking power industry. It operates gas turbine power plants, so that in situations where we have a drought and have insufficient water in our lakes to sustain the generation of hydro power, or at other times when there is a high demand, such as during the cold snaps we have experienced over the last few days, it will use natural gas to fire turbines and supplement the baseload that is produced by more sustainable means such as the hydro and geothermal plants in New Zealand. So it is a very important issue.

We have had some contributions from across the House that I think actually necessitate my putting the record straight. I do not want to be ungracious myself. I welcome the change of heart, or at least the coming to their senses, of the Green Party in voting for this bill, and I also welcome the support from Labour and New Zealand First—in fact, I welcome the universal support of this House for this piece of legislation. But there have been some comments made in the debate that do necessitate a response, I believe—firstly, from Mr Nash. I acknowledge Mr Nash’s expertise in this industry. He himself has worked in the petrochemical industry. But Mr Nash accusing the Government of making sloppy amendments or, in fact, making amendments to sloppy legislation, is a little bit rich, given Labour was the Government that passed the Police Act, for which extraordinary urgency was required to correct a drafting error that had led to a large number—dozens—of New Zealand police constables not being correctly sworn in. It potentially could have had very grave ramifications for the administration of justice in New Zealand.

Similarly, Gareth Hughes, when he made his contribution, claimed that we have the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world. This is not correct. When consulting publicly available sources on the internet, you will see that we are the eighth-largest or ninth-largest, depending on the definitions used, unless you want to include the Realm of New Zealand, which are the small countries that we are in free association with—Niue, Tokelau, the Cook Islands, and parts of Antarctica. I think it would be a far cry for the Greens to be embarking on that sort of imperialism, where we would want to claim the resources of those countries with which we have close relationships but we do not purport to own what is under their seabed or, in fact, the fisheries and other resources that go with that exclusive economic zone. So I think it is important to correct those issues.

Shell Todd Oil Services is the first and probably the foremost company when it comes to passing this amendment, in that it had a permit that expired on 27 June. It is true that that situation is less problematic now, given that it has been given an approved permit, but there is a matter of principle here. We came in, as a Government, when there was no protection whatsoever for an exclusive economic zone. We had had 40 years of oil companies and gas exploration in New Zealand with very limited controls, and now I am quite proud to be part of a Government that has brought in comprehensive and consistent controls and a process for registering and seeking permits to be able to explore and extract petrochemicals and gas.

It probably should be unsurprising to us that with such a substantial and also new and innovative piece of legislation, there will be issues that need to be amended. This is a correctly named bill in that it is a transitional provisions amendment bill. So it is Shell Todd Oil Services that is the first beneficiary, if you like, of this piece of legislation, but there are several other companies that have permits expiring out through the 2020s for which this bill was also required to give them sufficient time to lodge their applications and have them reasonably heard, and also to give our environmental protection agencies sufficient time to review those applications and make sure they are making a well-advised and fair decision on those particular cases.

In the select committee—and I think other members such as Major Mark referenced this—we did hear differing views. My personal view was that an application period of 6 months by which a company must lodge a consent for its marine permit is a reasonable time. That was my personal view. I particularly favoured 6 months because it was in line with the Crown Minerals Act. I thought consistency between exploration onshore and offshore was fairly important. But, as Mr Mark referenced, we are a fair and reasonable committee. Our ears were open. We listened to the arguments that were made. It was not my personal preference, but we came to a time line of 9 months by which that application must be lodged prior to its expiration date. Although my preference was for 6 months, I think 9 months is a good compromise. It is something that the companies will be able to manage and ensure that they continue to function, producing that valuable export commodity and energy for the New Zealand market.

As the law currently stands, were we not to pass this bill, those current applicants and operators that are applying for marine consents would find themselves in breach of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act if they continued operating beyond the expiry date of their permits under the Crown minerals regime—the previous regime—even if there was an appeal in process. To me, that strikes as something that is manifestly unfair. If you have got your application in in good time but you are going through a very lengthy appeal process—and it can take many months, even years, for some of these technical details to be fully worked through in the appeals process—it does seem somewhat unfair that that company would be unduly penalised, and that is without even taking into account the knock-on effect on New Zealand energy consumers and the wider economy. So we simply cannot afford to have an energy resource—a gasfield that produces 20 percent of our domestic supply—to have any uncertainty over its operations, and for this reason I welcome the support of other parties in the House.

I also need to note that this bill does not change anything for other operators. Those that have their existing permits and consents in place will continue to be able to explore and extract until their applications are further decided. If the amendments were not made before 27 June, then Shell Todd Oil Services would have found itself in breach of the 2012 Act if it was operating without a marine consent. So it is very timely that we are passing this legislation. In fact, one might say we are even getting it in a little bit early, before that final deadline.

This is an important piece of legislation. I welcome the cross-party consensus on this bill, and I do commend it to the House.

I understand this is a split call. My colleague Gareth Hughes explained why the Green Party was opposing this legislation at first reading. We opposed it because it did seem to be preferential treatment for Shell Todd Oil Services. But through the submission process we have come to support it, and that is largely because it does make the administration of the exclusive economic zone legislation more efficient, administratively. It is largely a procedural issue rather than a substantive change to the decision-making criteria in the bill, and that is, of course, because it does allow holders of existing permits or privileges under the Crown Minerals Act to continue to operate while they apply for a marine consent under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, provided their application is lodged 9 months before their existing permit expires and provided they lodge a complete application.

But, as others have said, this is definitely a patch-up piece of legislation, and although we are supporting it, we would like to highlight another one of the concerns. We are concerned that we are going to get another patch-up job because when one reads the 121-page Environmental Protection Authority decision on Shell Todd Oil Services’ actual application for a marine consent—and I have not yet read all of it—one of the things that is highlighted in the expert evidence around the decision is that when the authority is considering marine consents such as the other four that will come before it from other operators, there is no ability for the authority to consider final decommissioning. That is outside the whole scope of the marine consent because, as one of the authority’s staff members noted, there is nothing in primary legislation in New Zealand that gives effect to international decommissioning requirements. It is not all about business continuance, as Mr Doocey and others have talked about in their speeches.

There are major environmental impacts from both oil and gas exploration and from the continued operation of the drilling rig and what happens when it ends its life, and yet in the exclusive economic zone Act we have nothing that controls decommissioning. So it is unclear as to whether the oil rig and the gas platforms can actually be left in place. Just what will happen to them at the end of their life, when Shell Todd Oil Services has extracted all that it wants to? Is that another piece of ad hoc legislation that we will see coming to this House to patch it up because, as with this bill, the Government has neglected to take a comprehensive overview of all of the requirements that are needed to control this industry?

The other issue where there is a big gap, of course, is in marine protection. This House, and the Government, has acted with speed to get this legislation passed potentially by 27 June, when Shell Todd Oil Services would have been in breach of the principal Act, yet it has failed to operate with the same speed, the same commitment, to actually ensure that we have got adequate marine protection.

In the select committee last week the Minister of Conservation noted that the responsibility for new marine protected areas legislation, which we have been promised by this Government in every election, is now going to be part of the responsibility of the Ministry for the Environment rather than the Department of Conservation. The concern is that we expedite special legislation to assist the oil companies, but this Government fails to expedite legislation to actually protect parts of our exclusive economic zone. So we have no deep-sea marine reserves, and if we have the Ministry for the Environment, with its sustainable management function, now being responsible for marine protection, rather than the Department of Conservation, which, of course has the function of preserving and protecting natural resources, we are likely to see a lot of Clayton’s marine reserves, where fishing is allowed to continue and there may be just some restrictions on fishing methods. We are supporting this bill, but there is a major gap in our law in that we do not have effective marine protection legislation.

Can I just briefly send out a mihi to all of the whanau, hapū, and iwi in my electorate who are suffering floods right at the moment and say that I am thinking of them right now.

This bill, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill, which the Labour Party is supporting at this third reading—I endorse those comments from members who have stated that the principal legislation was rushed through this House and was badly drafted. I am quite astounded that this issue was not picked up at the original passing of the principal legislation. One would have thought that modelling would be done. We expect that many community organisations would do their homework when they are doing things like applying for funding, etc. It would not be too much to ask during the drafting of that legislation that modelling around the application process would have been done, so that everyone would see how this process should work. Clearly, it was not done, and so we find ourselves in the House today passing this legislation to correct that, so that businesses like Shell Todd Oil Services can continue operating under the current legislation.

We heard from the member Matt Doocey, who said that we need this legislation because of business continuity. And that is correct; we do need business continuity. The problem that I have is that, it seems to me, the Government restricts its identifying of business continuity to only certain businesses. If we applied that member’s logic to Relationships Aotearoa there would be 183 people who would not be out of work today. He talked about the 300 people who would be lost from the mining industry if the current legislation was left, and said that there are appeals under that process.

That is an ongoing issue that I actually have with the members opposite. They are very good at putting up legislation that helps big business, but when it comes to supporting community organisations like Relationships Aotearoa, 183 people lose their jobs and 7,000 of its clients have to find alternative services for the issues that they have.

I want to acknowledge the submitters, and in particular Tanea Tangaroa. She has put in a submission to the select committee. She talks about a number of issues that I think are relevant and that I think need to be noted in the House with regard to this piece of legislation. Albeit she focused on the ongoing extraction of oil and gas from Papatūānuku, I think it is still relevant that someone like her should be able to make a submission to the select committee around her concerns about this legislation, and so I mihi to her.

It is a very small bill, of course—only four clauses, and the relevant clause is clause 4, which amends section 162 of the principal Act. We would not be in this situation—I will congratulate the members of the select committee, because the bill is substantially changed from the first reading, and I think it is obviously due to members of that select committee. I congratulate them on coming to a consensus around the time frame that organisations have for their applications. Thank you.

I rise to take a final call on this amazing bill, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. This bill is in the name of Dr Nick Smith, our Minister for the Environment.

I just want to make a bit of a comment around what our colleague in New Zealand First said about our loyalty to our Minister. This is what this National-led Government and this National Party is all about. We are loyal to each other. It does not matter whether you are a Minister or not—we are loyal to each other. I believe that that kind of loyalty is a model that many parties within this House could take a page out of our book on, when it comes to loyalty to each other and loyalty to the philosophies and principles that run our party. The Hon Nick Smith is a very good Minister. He is a very thorough Minister. He cares about our environment and has done a lot of work around the protection of our environment and also leading our Bluegreens caucus group, which has been successful from day one through his leadership.

A couple of other things that I also want to mention here are when one of my colleagues talked about business continuity—and the other member who spoke just before, Adrian Rurawhe, talked about how this is a Government that looks after only big business. This particular bill is actually for key businesses—for key petroleum, gas, and mining businesses that play a key role in the economy of this country. We cannot and will not be taken aside and beaten up about that. These are organisations that make sure that the people of this country are able to access gas without any interruption whatsoever.

So, yes, as we have acknowledged in our select committee, capably and competently led by—

💬 Tim Macindoe: Scott Simpson.

—Scott Simpson, our chair—I just about forgot his name! We are a committee that listens to the arguments. We listened to the arguments about changes and amendments and weighed them up and thought yes, this is a good way to go. I am really pleased—I am really, really pleased—to see that our colleagues in the Green Party have actually changed their vote and are now supporting this bill, because it is a very important bill to support.

The amendments that have been proposed in clause 4, amending section 162(5), allow existing operators who have applied for marine consents to continue operations until the application is decided so that they can go a little bit further, working and operating, until their application is agreed to and any other subsequent objections or appeals are determined. That is good for the industry of New Zealand. If the amendments were not made, Shell Todd Oil Services would be in breach. As we know, just recently Shell Todd Oil Services received its marine consent to operate, but we still need to get this bill through to make sure that if there are going to be any appeals, the organisation can keep on operating in the Māui field.

The Māui field currently provides 20 percent of New Zealand’s gas. It is really important. We cannot afford any uncertainty in that for the people of this country. I can say that many constituents would actually have a go at us and say that we should have done more around this area, and we have. That is the whole point of this. It is a narrowly focused bill, but it is a bill that is so important to the economy and livelihoods of the people of this country. That is how we on this side of the House view all the bills that we put through, especially around environmental protection.

Currently, as the law stands, current operators who apply for marine consents would be in breach of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act if they continued operating beyond the expiry date. This bill allows them to carry on past the expiry date until the Environmental Protection Authority has approved their application for consent. Even having a marine consent application being considered by the Environmental Protection Authority under section 162 of the Act does not allow operators to continue their activities, as I said, beyond the expiry date of their permits under the Crown minerals regime. This bill will actually make sure that that does not happen.

As I said when I talked about big business, as was talked about just recently, and the dates for permit expirations, we are looking at Shell Todd Oil Services, whose permit was to expire on 27 June but has now been renewed for 35 years. We are talking about Australian Worldwide Exploration, whose marine consent expires on 24 November 2025; OMV New Zealand Ltd, whose marine consent expires on 1 December 2027; and Origin Energy Resources New Zealand—or Origin, as we know it—its marine consent expires on 26 June 2031. We know that Shell Todd Oil Services did not apply early enough, but what has happened now is that its application has gone through and now we just need to carry on and get this bill through its third and final reading. We cannot afford to let any of the 20 percent of the New Zealand consumer’s gas be held up by legislation that will stop that, so that is what this bill is all about.

Our natural environment, as I have mentioned before, is our greatest asset. Through the exclusive economic zone we have ended up with 44 marine reserves and the Environmental Protection Authority came into being. That is really key, because pre-2008 there was no legislation in this country to protect our environment. The previous Government allowed 34 wells to be drilled without any protection for our environment. I believe that is quite irresponsible towards the people of this country and our environment, because so many things could have gone wrong in those 34 wells that had been drilled without any sanctions or rules or a watchdog body looking after them.

I heard what our Green colleagues said about there being no deep-sea marine reserves approved. That is fine—we have 44 of them so far, and yes, most of them are inshore, and slowly—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am just going to invite the member to address the bill.

Yes, that is part of it. Slowly but surely, we would be looking at those into the future. So this bill does not change anything for existing operators; it just tightens up everything and makes sure it all works.

What it also does is give surety into the future for those who are consumers of gas and oil products. It also gives surety for the employment of people working on the Māui field. As I have said in previous speeches, I have not seen too many Taranaki people walking around with their lip drooping because of the Māui oilfields. The Māui fields have given so much security for the people of Taranaki around employment and economic development. I have been to Taranaki and seen beautiful walkways there and the development of their town. That is all attributed to the people who work at and operate Shell Todd Oil Services, who operate those Māui fields.

I am, as I have said before, very pleased and very proud to support the progress of this bill into legislation. I am very proud of the work that Nick Smith does, contrary to what some of my Opposition colleagues have actually said. He is a hard worker, and one whose book many people could take a leaf out of, on how to do things right—how to do things right, acknowledge certain things need changing, and do it. It is when people do not acknowledge it and do not change things that we get into trouble. This is a Government that listens. We weigh it up, we have discussions—we are very open about that—and then we present it back to the House. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

The Labour Opposition supports this bill and supports it because we did not want to be responsible for putting the environment at potential risk if this piece of legislation did not pass. I will talk more about that. The second point is that we have been critical of the relevant Ministers right from the outset, when the main legislation was passed and debated in this House in 2012. We said then that the main legislation was poorly drafted, it was weak legislation, and this bill is evidence of what we said then. The third point I will make, in my concluding remarks, is to acknowledge that despite our criticism of the Minister for the Environment and this Government, we do acknowledge that the select committee that reviewed this piece of legislation, the Local Government and Environment Committee, actually improved the legislation. I give credit to the chairman, Mr Scott Simpson, for the way that he ushered through our debates and discussion, and I would suggest to that side of the House that he ought to be a fine replacement for a Minister I saw last week who seemed very frail and seemed all beaten up. The last thing is that I would strongly commend those from the public who took the time to submit on this piece of legislation, because it is not a piece of legislation that is inviting for the public to make submissions to.

It is a piece of legislation that has only four clauses, and the first clause is, really, about the title. I said in the Committee of the whole House that the title is a mouthful: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. That itself prevents a lot of our public from participating and coming forward. In fact, the first thing is you would wonder what the legislation really is all about, and the title does not give that away. Clause 2 of the bill is a standard clause. Clause 3 then makes reference that the main Act, the Act that came into force in 2013, goes back to 2012. I will repeat again that our criticism of the then Minister, Amy Adams, and of the present Minister in this portfolio is that they rushed through the legislation. It was poorly drafted, it was weak legislation, and, again, having us being here in this House debating this bill is evidence of what we said.

The Government members pointed out the fact that we also had legislation in the previous Government that needed improvement. I would say to the Government: do not use that argument, because the present Government is now in charge and has the power to make these changes if it so wishes. Using the argument that previous Governments made mistakes actually sends a bad message to the public, because what the Government is saying is that because the previous Government made a mistake, it is OK for it to make mistakes. Our role as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is to help the Government provide good legislation. The sign of an arrogant Government is when it stops listening to the Opposition, and that is what I mean. If it had stopped being arrogant and actually listened to the Opposition this legislation—the main Act in 2012—would have been a far better piece of legislation and we would not have to debate this here today. I acknowledge that the Government did, on this occasion, listen to some of the public submitters, and, on the whole, it was because of the workings of the committee, chaired by Mr Scott Simpson, that we have a piece of legislation that we are pleased to support.

The final clause of the legislation is really the major amendment. The reason why we are having to amend it is because of Shell Todd Oil Services, which is a company that operates the Māui Gas platforms. If this amendment does not pass we then put at risk the environment by having to temporarily close the operations of the Māui Gas platforms at great cost and also, potentially, put the environment at risk. That is the sole reason why we are supporting this. By amending this legislation it allows Shell Todd Oil Services to put its resource consent in, barring any appeals that may come in place. I note that some of the submitters were quite critical of the fact—and I reiterate what some others have said—that a company such as Shell Todd Oil Services surely would have had the means and the resources to have got its act in place so that it could have entered its resource consent with sufficient time, taking into consideration any potential appeals that might have come its way. But on this occasion we have had to amend the bill to give them sufficient time in order for the Māui Gas operations to continue and not to put the environment at risk.

Some of the key issues raised by submitters were that they did not want to provide an open-ended time frame for existing operations to continue outside the exclusive economic zone legislation regime. I think the select committee heard that, the select committee took note of that, and, as a result, we put a time frame of 9 months. Another key issue that was raised by submitters was the preferential treatment for the petroleum industry. We have not talked about this in the debates, but it is an issue that comes up time and time again from many in this country of ours who are concerned about the way this Government seems to be able to freely argue that for purely economic reasons it is OK to exploit oil and gas without any due consideration for the environment. Its rhetoric about maintaining a balance—I think the public stills needs to see evidence of that. Yes, we can exploit for economic reasons, but where is the protection of the environment? Where does that lie? Who becomes responsible for the wreckage of the environment? Because in many cases, on an international level, we see examples of that with oil spills in other parts of the world and what not. We have been fortunate, but that does not mean we are immune. I think that if we are allowing companies to believe that they can run roughshod over our legislation, and if Governments are not vigilant to the point where they are producing legislation that is weak and poorly drafted, as is the case with the main piece of legislation, then we put our environment at risk.

I remember some of our elders—and these are mana whenua in Tāmaki Makaurau—who often remind us that they have a world view about protecting the environment, and the reason is because we are passing the environment to the next generation. What is it that we pass on to the next generation if we do not take care of the present environment that we are living in? To argue that purely for economic reasons it is OK to allow certain companies to have unfettered power to exploit and to explore our environment—I am just issuing a word of caution to the Government that if it talks about the blue-green argument, then it needs to produce evidence of how it is that it is protecting this environment for the next generation coming through. I want to acknowledge the submitters. There were few submitters on the bill, but I say again that I am grateful for the way that they conducted themselves and the evidence that they produced. Thankfully all members of the select committee were able to take on board what they said, and I think that is what we saw in the final draft of this bill here. Thank you.

Āe, e mihi atu ki a koe, e te Mana Whakawā, ā, huri noa i te Whare, tēnei Whare Pāremata, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Yes, I acknowledge you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and all of you throughout the House, this House of Parliament.]

Before I talk about this particular bill, I just want to acknowledge the passing of the Rt Hon Sir William Birch’s wife, Lady Rosa, who passed away yesterday. So I am just thinking of Sir William and also his whānau at this time.

I rise to support the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I will be ticking off another parliamentary milestone today in the fact that this is the first bill that I have seen go right through the legislative process. I spoke on the first reading. I sat on the select committee. I spoke on the second reading, and now I speak as the final speaker to, hopefully, allow it to be passed through into law.

As the final speaker on the bill I want to summarise the situation that necessitated this bill, the details of what it does, and, finally, give the broader picture. I do acknowledge members from both sides of the House and particularly the previous speaker, Su’a William Sio, who spoke about responsibilities around legislation, the role of the Opposition, and the role of those in Government.

When National first came into Government in 2008 there was no regulatory regime in place to protect our oceans. I think that is really a major point in this whole process. Our exclusive economic zone, which is very vast, over 4 million square kilometres, really does contain some untapped potential. As a Government that is committed to improving the lives of New Zealanders, creating jobs, and lifting income levels we are committed to making the best use of those resources, and that should be a commitment from all members of this House.

What we should also be doing—and it is what we have actually done, and it is a reflection of this bill—is making economic use of the exclusive economic zone. We understand that this carries a risk to the environment. So it is vital that we protect this vulnerable environment—it is very, very vulnerable. We need to try to minimise as much as possible the environmental risks. So this is what National did. National introduced the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. So this is the one that we are amending. We put in place for this country, for the first time, the first comprehensive regulatory regime of the exclusive economic zone. I think that milestone is really important to highlight in this final reading.

The Act we are amending here was indeed a major reform. It was a very significant and a very complex piece of legislation. In fact, there were not 121 pages; there were 129 pages. So it is no surprise that there have been unintended consequences. The provisions around the transitioning of the four current platform operators into this new regime have not been as clear as they could have been—this is major legislation; very comprehensive, containing 129 pages. Granted, it would have been nice to see Shell Todd Oil Services allowing much more time between its application for consent and the expiry of its current permit. If the permit had not been granted in time, Shell Todd Oil Services would have had to cease operations immediately. The effect, of course—and we have heard this right across the House—would have been major, as 20 percent of New Zealand’s gas would have been in jeopardy. The supply would have stopped.

This is an essential resource, which many families and businesses rely on, and I know that previous speakers from the other side of the House have said we are using that as an excuse, in part, for having to amend this Act. That may be so, but, at the end of the day, it is not just to protect only those people who would have suffered drastically if we just completely shut it down immediately. It was that situation that we addressed, but, as I said previously, there are a number of other reasons why we needed to amend this Act. If the permit had not been granted in time, Shell Todd Oil Services would have had to cease operations immediately, and then it would have been mayhem particularly for a number of New Zealand families and businesses. That is why part of this amendment is really, really important.

Shell Todd Oil Services has now been granted the consent. We all understand that. There are weeks before that expiry—only weeks—but there is an appeals process, and we understand that as well. But I think, looking at the bill and the appeals process, it cannot hold up the actual pathway travel of the permit itself. I think that is also a really important part of this legislation.

This bill does not just ensure the continuity of gas supply while any appeals regarding Shell Todd Oil Services or the other three consents are heard. It also ensures that there is a sensible transitional process in place for the remaining three other operators. We have really heard only about Shell Todd Oil Services. The other companies are Australian Worldwide Exploration, OMV New Zealand, and Origin Energy Resources. They will still be required to lodge their applications for consent at least 9 months before the current permits expire, provided that the Environmental Protection Authority accepts an application as complete. In addition, if any appeals are lodged the current permits will continue to apply until they have been heard and the final decisions made.

As the final speaker I want to, as everyone else has done, acknowledge the submitters. There was a good cross-section of submitters, and I suppose it is all about quality as opposed to quantity. There were very few, but they covered major stakeholders within the industry, major stakeholders who were tangata whenua, and mana whenua, and they are really active groups that share the same whakaaro, the same things that we on this side of the House really do believe are very, very important to the sustainability of our environment. I acknowledge the other members on the Local Government and Environment Committee and, of course, our very able chair, Scott Simpson.

Finally, we are here today because the Government has introduced a bill that was long overdue. That is why we are here. We have a proper regulatory regime for our oceans, and for the first time in our history, environmental risks in the exclusive economic zone must be assessed and managed. This was a great step forward, I believe, and one that makes me proud to be a National Party MP and a blue-green. Our natural environment is our greatest asset. National’s successful economic and environmental policies must go hand in hand. This is another milestone in that journey.