Nash Stuart: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionNash Stuart: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4533. Text is subject to correction.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):Despite what our Green friend Gareth Hughes said the economic reality is that this bill had to pass through the House—there is no doubt about that. But I suppose the reason why a number of my colleagues have expressed concern about this bill is that we all know—even the Nats know—that this is really a sloppy way to put legislation in place. It is a very sloppy way to manage something that is very important to our environment.If we actually have a look at new section 162(5) in clause 4 it says—we are talking about the drilling for gas here; everybody knows what we are talking about—“the activity may continue without a marine consent until the application is decided under section 62 and any appeals are determined.” What this basically says to the people of New Zealand is: “This is going to go ahead no matter what. Don’t bother appealing because the activity is there and that is the way it is.” I do not think that is a particularly democratic way to do things. There is a lot better way to draft legislation that allows us to get this sort of bill through the House. There is no point in apportioning blame to Shell Todd Oil Services or to the Government—the bottom line is that we have ended in a situation that we have all admitted is suboptimal.I have heard National members stand up and say congratulations to Scott Simpson on the way that this has been managed. Well I would say that if the chair was on the ball when the original legislation came through the House they would have noted—and even the officials would have noted—that this is a glaring admission. You know one of our largest gas platforms has not got consent and the legislation does not cover this. So I am not too sure what went on in the select committee process Mr Chair. I am sure if you had been the chair of committee this would not have happened in any way shape or form—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Don’t bring me into it.STUART NASH: —but it is really messy legislation. But it also cuts to the heart of what we believe as a country and Megan Woods has spoken about this. Our global brand is around our being “clean green” and “100% Pure New Zealand”. It is what we go out there and market. I mean the Ministry of Economic Development or whatever it was called way back when valued our brand at $20 billion a year. That was in 2005 so I am sure it is worth a lot more than that now. The research also showed that 80 percent of New Zealand companies that seek to engage with overseas markets actually leverage off our brand. So part of this—Chris Bishop: Where have I heard this before?STUART NASH: That is right Mr Bishop. You have heard this before because I think it is such an important point. The Government keeps missing the mark on it and I just do not get it because it is so important to our country. What we have done by highlighting this is that you know we have worked incredibly hard and the Labour Government worked incredibly hard to actually develop a regulatory environment that was First World because overseas we are judged on how we manage the regulatory environment and on how big oil companies operate in our exclusive economic zone.By doing this—by having this sort of legislative burp I suppose or misstep—it just says to the world that we are not on top of our game and that also plays into our global brand of being a fantastic citizen and protector of the environment. We have got to get this sort of thing right and I say to the Minister who is in charge of this bill—and I understand that it is not the Minister in the chair. He has got his own issues managing a $2 billion 10-year project; good luck with that one. But I do say to the Minister who is involved with this bill that we have got to do better than this—we really do—as a country because if we continue to develop legislation in such an important area that does have a major consequence on our global brand then we will undo a whole lot of work that over the years has led to the reputation that we have got at the moment.You know back in the good old days we were seen as the cowboys of the wild west. You came down here you did whatever you wanted to do it did not matter and then you got out. If we were lucky as a country it went well and if we were not lucky then it did not go well but who cared? Because we were at the bottom of the Pacific no one cared. That has changed. The way we do business has changed. The way we do business in this country and the messages that we send to overseas markets have changed but this sort of legislation takes us back to the bad old days. We have caught it. The fact is though as mentioned in the legislation in new section 162(5) it basically says you do not need a consent to do this so this is going to be retrospective consenting if in fact there are a whole lot of appeals and I do not know whether there will be but if there are—there is nothing good about retrospective consenting in this sort of environment.The other thing that this does is just give impetus to those—and I am one of them I must admit—who put up the argument for alternative energies. We have got a good story to go out to the market at the moment. You know we are at 80 percent renewables in terms of our electricity generation. That is a very good story but both the National Party and the Labour Party have a target of 90 percent in 10 years. I think we will get there but this sort of stuff says—