Hughes Gareth: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 26 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:2006. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to oppose this legislation. This bill which the National Party members are trying to say is simply a technical bill to fix a loophole needs I believe greater scrutiny greater intellectual rigour and greater public discussion. This bill effectively allows the marine consent conditions that apply where an objection is lodged to continue even if the petroleum company’s licence has expired.We are well aware that this bill is going to pass its first reading. Had it been that the Green Party had the casting vote we would have demanded more information in advance and our vote I am the first to acknowledge may well have been different. But in the absence of that—in the absence of adequate appropriate information from the Government and from officials—I am proud that my party is lodging a protest vote. We will be opposing this law because the Government has not adequately made the case that it is the only option available to us. This looks like yet another example under John Key of one law for oil. This treats the locals in Taranaki in an absolutely unequal fashion. Iwi hapū and local community groups have not had their submissions extended despite a story that I will paint yet Shell Todd Oil Services gets laws changed in our Parliament.So this bill is not about fixing a loophole. Let us challenge that myth that piece of propaganda up front. This is about giving Shell Todd Oil Services more time to get a resource consent because it did not get its act together properly to apply for this marine consent over the last 3 years. We know this company has had this marine licence for 35 years. It was heavily involved in submitting on and assisting with the drafting of this now 3-year-old legislation yet it messed up. It did not get its application in on time. It did not put in an application which was fine by the Environmental Protection Authority which then required 44 separate requests for additional information from Shell Todd Oil Services yet the public did not get an extension to comment on those.What we are seeing here is another bill in Parliament passed for one specific industry a winner that the National Government—National the supposedly free-market and freedom party—has picked: the oil industry one of the most profitable sectors in the world. However as I have acknowledged our vote may well change in the future. We go into the select committee process with an open mind. We welcome the submissions. We want to question the applicant and associated parties. But at this point with such inadequate information we cannot support this law.So my first point is that the Green Party does not want to see the Māui platform shut down but we are worried about changing the legislation to suit a company that did not get its application in with enough time and in an appropriate format that did not require four full pages of additional information requested from the Environmental Protection Authority. We have a number of questions that I think the Minister for the Environment needs to front on and explain. Why when Cabinet agreed to this course of action on 8 December 2014 did we not hear about it until last Tuesday when I was questioning the Government around Chatham Rock Phosphate’s declined application? Why the months of delay? Why did the Government decide to consult with only the applicant—Shell Todd Oil Services—and related Government departments not the public not the iwi and hapū whom this oil actually belongs to? It belongs to all New Zealanders. The Government consulted only the applicant and Government departments.The critical question is this and I hope some National member can explain this to me and I want to make sure I am getting this right. Cabinet according to the regulatory impact assessment made this decision to go with this course of action on 8 December 2014 yet Shell Todd Oil Services put in its application only on 15 December. The Environmental Protection Agency accepted it only on 12 January 2015 to meet its fast-looming 27 June 2015 deadline. So Cabinet agreed to change the law before this company even put its application into the Environmental Protection Agency. To me it looks like this company spent its time lobbying Government Ministers rather than actually getting its application in on time. This is an application that lasted for 35 years. Our legislation has been in place for 3 years. This is a company that had been heavily involved in the process to pass that legislation but it could not get its ducks in a row could not get its timing right and so it ran to the Government and said: “Look can you pass a law for us?”.We have to ask why the application was so inadequate. There were 45 additional pieces of information required. This is not a loophole; this is a mess that the Government is cleaning up with its statutory power. Passing laws is the most important power each member in this Parliament has—a privilege bestowed upon us thanks to constitutional history and the work of countless individuals over the course of time. Here we are using our most powerful ability to pass a law to benefit a single company that needs its mess cleaned up.As I said we are happy to reconsider the process. We will be going into the select committee with an open mind and wanting to ask questions. But the main point we want to challenge is the “significant economic impact” that we have heard from the Government benches. Nick Smith blatantly exaggerated the impact on New Zealand last week when he said that some 40 percent of our country’s gas could be at stake. All the official documents state that it is in the order of around 20 percent. So here is a Minister doubling the gas impact for New Zealand in his public commentary. There has been no explanation why this company which presumably obviously knew about this issue months before Cabinet discussed it and agreed to this course of action did not put in place alternative supply arrangements did not source alternative supplies of gas and did not talk to other gas suppliers around potential arrangements there.We often hear National talking about personal responsibility for say a beneficiary who has gone to a Government department and been told: “Sorry the rules are the rules you didn’t get your thing in on time.” or for a charity that has applied for Government funding to do some good in its community and is told: “Sorry the deadline has passed. The rules are the rules.” However when it comes to the oil industry and Shell Todd Oil Services the Government is quite prepared to jump and to ask “How high?” when it is asked to jump. The fact is that there has been no explanation as to how this will have a significant economic impact. If that point can be proved the Green Party is I believe highly likely to support it. We do not want to see families go without gas for their cooking. We do not want to see industrial consumers being forced to close down because of a lack of gas supply. But if this is simply about saving a particular company money for it to avoid particular contractual penalties if it cannot meet its supply agreements then I think the public of New Zealand would look at this House and the passing of this law in a different light.The locals have not been given an extension of submissions despite requesting it despite all the additional information requested despite the fact that this company still will not release its oil spill response plan. I believe New Zealanders are looking to Parliament to say: “We need a separation of oil and State.” Already in my career in Parliament in the last 3 years I have seen laws made for oil. When Petrobras had an iwi—Te Whānau a Apanui—fishing boat sailing in front of it the Government called out the navy. When Anadarko was worried that it might see protesters off our shores we passed the Anadarko amendment under urgency. When the oil industry wanted help promoting itself the Government thought it would fork out $240000 of taxpayers’ money on 11 executives for only 4 days. We have got the fourth-lowest tax for this royalty rate in the world—$46 million in tax breaks per annum. This sector—one of the most profitable in the world—has been picked as the champion as the winner by this Government and here we see another law for oil.But there is an opportunity cost. The Government Cabinet the officials this Parliament—we could have been rolling out a network of modern infrastructure such as electric vehicle charging stations during this time. We could have been rolling back those tax breaks and investing that money in clean energy growing jobs and boosting regional economies. We could have been giving solar energy a fair go for all those thousands of consumers who feel ripped off by the power companies when they have those solar panels on their roofs. We could have been establishing a green investment bank to drive the growth of the New Zealand economy in terms of green investment and clean energy. But no we are passing another law for oil. The Green Party goes into it with an open mind—we are not locked into this vote—but I am proud to cast a protest vote.