Electricity and Gas Industries Bill

This is a relatively small part of the bill, but a crucially important one. Over the next hour or so there are a few issues that I wish to canvass. I want to start by talking about the need for the part. It is an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act that allows for the collection and disclosure of information in connection with reserves that are discovered in both the gas and the oil area. Obviously, those are decisions that any Government wants because what one does not want—and it happens around the world—is a company to come in, exercise its rights under the licence that has been issued by the Crown to sink its wells, make a find, and then hold that information so that the Crown has no idea of the reserves that may be coming, and the impact that that will have on the wider economy, both in terms of oil usage and gas usage—and in this country, the gas usage as it relates to the gas and electricity markets. I say to the Minister that it makes sense. There is no problem with clause 47 and the requirement that the Minister is putting in.

However, I want to come to clauses 48 and 49, because I am a little bit worried. The issue that I have is one of compliance costs. I do not have a problem with the fact that companies are required to disclose; they should be. That is fine. That information should be out there in the public arena. The real issue is with regard to prescribing the form and manner in which, and the time by which, this information has to be collected and published. With the exception, I guess, of Todd Petroleum Mining, there are no New Zealand companies out there drilling now, or that will be drilling in the near future. Well, there are; I tell a fib, actually. Of course there are other consortiums around the country, but the bulk of the consortiums that are drilling are overseas consortiums.

I worry that we are putting a regulatory environment on them in terms of compliance costs, in the manner and form in which they must publish their information, that may well be unreasonable. It goes with the whole tenor of the bill, as another reason why companies may not wish to come to this part of the world. This is a very hostile and difficult part of the world for people to drill in. They are drilling offshore largely, in difficult conditions in many cases. On top of that we are putting in requirements that I think may well be too onerous.

I guess that the issue I would ask the Minister to clarify to the House is why we need this. At the moment are there examples of companies that are drilling and not providing information? If so, name them. The good old “name-and-shame” principle might work very well here. The other issue is that if companies are coming to New Zealand and publishing information, is it being done in a way that is too difficult for our ministry officials to read? Is that why we have to prescribe the form? One would have thought that if it was good enough for the Australians, the South Africans, the Indonesians, or the people from whichever countries those companies are drilling in, to read the information, then our ministry officials could certainly read it and publish it. One would have thought that would make a lot of sense.

The issue is serious, and I know that Mr Benson-Pope has trouble with serious issues. I tell him that companies are concerned about this sort of issue. If they are required to publish their information in Australia, Indonesia, or South Africa, why would we require a separate form? Why would there be that requirement in this country, in terms of the form and manner of the provision?

I tell the Minister that I accept the timeliness provision in the clause. We do want to require that permit holders publish in a certain timely fashion. We do not want them holding the information forever. That is fine. But it is the other issues that we are particularly concerned about. If we take Part 5 together with the very, very draconian Part 4 that we have already talked about, we have a package that starts to get quite hostile towards companies that are investing a large amount of money in what is a very, very risky business. I say to the Government that if the Minister is serious when he mops his brow and worries at public functions about the future of gas, why is he making it so hard? Either the brow-mopping exercise is an act and the Minister is not that worried, or there are some other reasons behind it and he is not in control of his own legislation. Perhaps the Minister of Finance or someone else is in control of this and is more worried about the revenue side of the timeliness of reporting, and the manner and form of reporting. Is this being driven by the Minister of Finance, rather than by the Minister in the chair, Pete Hodgson?

These are serious issues, and I think we need to have them addressed. I note that the Minister looks like he is ready to answer these questions and I look forward to him doing that. As we move through this part there are other issues that clearly we will want to come back to. I hope that once the Minister has answered these questions, we will come back to those issues shortly.

Can I just carry on from where my colleague—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.