Wagner Nicky: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4662. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Yes it does cover a series of miscellaneous issues including the transitionary provisions and consequential amendments. It is really the nuts and bolts of how this legislation will work. It covers things like the detail of the cost recovery provisions the servicing of documents the rules and regulations around sensitive information and waivers and exemptions. Finally it includes a schedule relating to inspection powers. 
We know that this legislation is part of a whole suite of Acts that cover the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf marine environment and that it fills the gaps. This bill provides the legislative framework to manage and monitor activities and protect the environment. There are significant amendments to be made to existing legislation which are also done in Part 4. 
I would just like to focus on the transitional provisions particularly clause 151A. Moana Mackey was saying that she is having difficulty understanding these clauses and I would like to explain. Also Eugenie Sage asked us a question about clause 151A. This clause concerns activities such as prospecting exploration or mining for petroleum that are authorised by a permit. A planned activity is authorised by a permit. That permit is granted under section 25 or section 107 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991. In other words these are activities that are legally permitted before the bill that we are talking about now comes into force. 
The bill requires operators to prepare an impact assessment and provide it to the Environmental Protection Authority. However under the Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 this activity may continue without a marine consent after the date that the legislation comes into force for 12 months or to the very latest date of May 2014. That also answers Moana Mackey’s question about Petrobras. As it is Petrobras does not have a mining permit so it cannot mine; it can only prospect. It has an exploration permit. But the transitory provisions last for only 12 months after the regulations become law with a final date of May 2014. So finally whatever happens the end of that happens in 2014. Then it has to go to the marine consenting process. 
It may seem that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper gives prospectors more leeway than the original bill but this is not the case. Let me explain. Clause 151A concerns prospecting information. The original bill required an application for marine consent to be made within 6 months—so we had to put the marine consent in within 6 months—but work could continue until the final decision was made on that application which could be 12 months. What the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper does does not change the outcome. The problem with the timing of the original bill was that the prospecting work would have already been completed before the consent decision was made. Therefore the consent would be redundant which actually would have made a bit of a mockery of the whole process and I do not think it would have been a good way to introduce our new legislation. Prospecting for petroleum takes place only in the summer months so there would be no activity under way while the company was preparing its consent up until November 2013. But while it was waiting for that decision the work would be under way and completed before the consent was issued in May 2014. 
The Supplementary Order Paper no longer requires an interim marine consent application which as you can see would come only after the work had been done so would have been a waste of everybody’s time but it definitely requires a consent before the following prospecting season. So the Minister’s change does not affect the outcome. It is not a softening up of the legislation but it does give more certainty to those who have planned authorised activities during the summer of 2013. I have to say that I think that is a reasonable and rational decision which gives credibility to the legislation. There would be nothing more galling to somebody who was prospecting than to have to go through all the process of applying for a consent and waiting for the decision but by the time the decision came the work had been done. It would be foolish if it was refused and of course it would have no use at all if it was approved. Thank you.