Mackey Moana: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10230. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour): This is the part of urgency when we pretend that a bill has just been to a select committee because normally we would be doing the second reading speech after a select committee has been given the opportunity to actually scrutinise the bill to make sure that it does what the Government intends it to do and to make sure there are not any unintended consequences. Instead here we are giving second reading speeches a matter of about 30 or 40 minutes after we gave the first reading speech. Unfortunately such is the way with this Government; it does not really care about the unintended consequences. All it knows is that this is the only plan it has—this and asset sales and pokie machines. That is it for the economy. If this does not work it is kind of screwed—it is kind of screwed. So it is going to do anything it can to grease the wheels and do everything possible to make sure this stuff happens regardless of the risks to the environment—regardless of the risks to the environment—because it does not have a plan B. The Government talks about jobs. Does it realise that there areactually other industries in New Zealand that create jobs and that are desperate for Government assistance like say the manufacturing industry or like say the cleantech and renewable energy sectors? There are actually other industries that could be used to create jobs.I want to comment on what Mark Mitchell and also Jonathan Young said when they talked about Taranaki and about how great this industry has been for Taranaki. You do realise that that happened under the existing regime. All of that development happened under legislation that actually provided adequate environmental protection. It does not need this shabby weak—weak—legislation in order for it to go ahead. If the existing legislation was so difficult that the oil and gas industry would never be able to operate then how did the industry in Taranaki happen in the first place Mr Young? I look forward to your speech answering that question just like you answered all the other questions.The reality is that it can go ahead under the legislation that is already there and Mr Young knows it. It is just that those members want to make sure that stuff that perhaps might not have got through that legislation because it is too risky does go ahead. On that balance it is too environmentally risky and risky with regard to health and safety but they are quite happy for that stuff to go ahead because this is the only plan they have got and that is the sad reality of what we are passing in the House today. As I said in my first reading speech you know the body is not even cold yet on the original bill which we passed 3 weeks ago and we are here having to clean up the mess that the Minister of Energy and Resources made and fix all the mistakes he made in that piece of legislation.One of the things that the Minister is doing in this piece of legislation—and he is pretending that he meant to do it the first time round but apparently he just accidentally left out 1.7 million square kilometres in the original bill and there is a minor technical amendment to make sure it is included in this one. Well the Minister might say that it is about ensuring health and safety and ensuring safety on the high seas. Well if that is the case—I asked this question all through the debate on the original bill and I would like an answer please from the Minister or anyone else—and if safety is the issue then why does it not cover every vessel? Why is it only vessels that are protesting and then only vessels that are protesting against oil and gas operations? If it is about safety then surely that should apply to every vessel in which case instead of this bill or maybe as well as this bill why did we not have a bill extending the Maritime Transport Act and the Crimes Act which deal with the issue of dangerous behaviour in our territorial waters into the exclusive economic zone and maybe the continental shelf—even though there are questions about our ability to do that? Why did we not have a bill in the urgency motion doing simply that?I want to put on record my disappointment with the industry and how it has responded to this particular clause. I was really disappointed to see the Petroleum and Exploration and Production Association come out in support of it because I have got a lot of time for that association. It is engaging it is representing its industry—good on it. I was really disappointed to see it come out and support this rather than saying “We think that the existing regime in the territorial waters should be extended out so that everyone is subject to the same standards of behaviour and we are not just targeting one group.” It would have been a good response from the industry to say “Yes we want this dealt with because it does need to be dealt with but we want it to apply to everyone and not just apply to only vessels protesting against deep-sea drilling.” That would have been a good response from the association and I have to put on record my disappointment at the position it took over that.But I want to thank Dennis who has Facebooked me since my first reading speech to point out something that I had not picked up on which was in fact another change. It is not just extending it into the continental shelf; this same targeted regime now applies in our territorial waters and our territorial waters are not all actually above the continental shelf. So this takes this protest ban right up to the beaches—right up to the beaches—in New Zealand and that was not the case under the amendment that we passed 3 weeks ago. So I want to thank Dennis for Facebooking me to point out that I had missed that because that is a very good point. This bill does not just extend it further out into the high seas but it actually extends it right up to the beaches—right up to the beaches—and that simply is appalling. Not only that but what it means is that in our territorial waters above the continental shelf we now have two regimes in place. Which one are the police going to prosecute under? Are they going to prosecute under the Maritime Transport Act and the Crimes Act which is what the position is currently or are they going to prosecute under this new law that we are bringing in which targets just protest vessels? Which one? Which one are the police going to use? That is just the most ridiculous situation to find ourselves in.The final point that I want to make is that no member on that side of the House—no Minister no National Party member who has spoken—and I am glad Tau Henare is here because he will be able to inject a bit of clarity into the debate and maybe answer these questions that his colleagues are refusing to answer. On the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website it makes it quite clear that New Zealand has no rights to legislate in the column of water above the continental shelf. We do not have any rights to manage the fisheries and the ministry actually says that we do not have any rights to manage any activities such as shipping. So if we are not allowed legally—and I am glad that Mr Tim Groser is in the House because he is an international expert. He operates at the highest levels of international negotiations. This is a man who knows what he is talking about. We are so grateful to have this visiting international expert in the House tonight. I would hope that he would take a call—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Oh be kind.MOANA MACKEY: I am being very kind. That is in all sincerity. I would hope that he would use—Simon O’Connor: That’s not a word we use on Labour.MOANA MACKEY: Mr Groser it is your own members who are laughing assuming that I am joking. I am not actually joking. I would hope that Mr Groser would be able to provide some clarity because what we are being told by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Mr Groser is in fact that we do not have any right to legislate this way in the waters above the continental shelf. If we cannot legislate to control shipping activities how is it that apparently we are allowed to legislate to control shipping activities that are protesting? I really look forward to an answer to that question because this is a serious issue for New Zealand’s reputation. I mean we are going to look like idiots if we start passing laws in parts of the world that we do not have any right to pass laws in. That is embarrassing. Then we will be back here in another few weeks passing the third Crown Minerals Amendment Act Amendment Act Amendment Bill in order to fix up all the mistakes from the last Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. I mean it just gets to be farcical.This is why bills like this need to go to a select committee. Mr Lotu-Iiga might not think that it is a serious question to know whether or not we are actually overstepping our jurisdiction as a Parliament in passing laws that actually might not be legally enforceable and might make us look completely idiotic on the world stage but on this side of the House we take those things very seriously. Mr Lotu-Iiga might think that it is OK to have two completely separate regimes in place in our territorial waters so thatpolice will not know which one they are meant to apply when dealing with a complaint—in fact maybe he could tell me now. Which one would it be? Will it be the Maritime Transport Act or will it be this bill? Nod and smile Mr Lotu-Iiga nod and smile. That is right. That is the National Party approach to everything—smile and wave nod and smile. This is an utter mess. It really is. The more you look into it the more you peel back the layers the worse it is.What makes this even worse is that the reasons we are doing this are not laudable at all. They are not because the Government wants to see safety and good practice. That is not why we are passing this. We are passing this because there is a current permit that the Government is considering between a Chinese company and Shell that is over the continental shelf between New Zealand and New Caledonia. That is why we are passing this. I would like the next National Party speaker to assure me that a deal was not done with those groups that this is not being done because they asked for it in return—Hon Chester Borrows: A deal or a grubby little deal?MOANA MACKEY: Well you have to say it is a hell of a coincidence Mr Borrows that here we are passing a bill to ban protesting on the continental shelf which we do not even have the power to do right at the time when we have our first permit for prospecting on the continental shelf. That is a hell of a coincidence Mr Borrows. I am afraid I am a lot more cynical than you are. I am afraid that I believe that where there is smoke there is fire and in this case I definitely think it is not a coincidence. The sad thing is we are doing this because the Government has no plan B and it wants to make sure its plan A goes ahead no matter what the risks are.