Sage Eugenie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4638. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]EUGENIE SAGE (Green):I understand this is a split call. My colleague Gareth Hughes explained why the Green Party was opposing this legislation at first reading. We opposed it because it did seem to be preferential treatment for Shell Todd Oil Services. But through the submission process we have come to support it and that is largely because it does make the administration of the exclusive economic zone legislation more efficient administratively. It is largely a procedural issue rather than a substantive change to the decision-making criteria in the bill and that is of course because it does allow holders of existing permits or privileges under the Crown Minerals Act to continue to operate while they apply for a marine consent under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act provided their application is lodged 9 months before their existing permit expires and provided they lodge a complete application.But as others have said this is definitely a patch-up piece of legislation and although we are supporting it we would like to highlight another one of the concerns. We are concerned that we are going to get another patch-up job because when one reads the 121-page Environmental Protection Authority decision on Shell Todd Oil Services’ actual application for a marine consent—and I have not yet read all of it—one of the things that is highlighted in the expert evidence around the decision is that when the authority is considering marine consents such as the other four that will come before it from other operators there is no ability for the authority to consider final decommissioning. That is outside the whole scope of the marine consent because as one of the authority’s staff members noted there is nothing in primary legislation in New Zealand that gives effect to international decommissioning requirements. It is not all about business continuance as Mr Doocey and others have talked about in their speeches.There are major environmental impacts from both oil and gas exploration and from the continued operation of the drilling rig and what happens when it ends its life and yet in the exclusive economic zone Act we have nothing that controls decommissioning. So it is unclear as to whether the oil rig and the gas platforms can actually be left in place. Just what will happen to them at the end of their life when Shell Todd Oil Services has extracted all that it wants to? Is that another piece of ad hoc legislation that we will see coming to this House to patch it up because as with this bill the Government has neglected to take a comprehensive overview of all of the requirements that are needed to control this industry?The other issue where there is a big gap of course is in marine protection. This House and the Government has acted with speed to get this legislation passed potentially by 27 June when Shell Todd Oil Services would have been in breach of the principal Act yet it has failed to operate with the same speed the same commitment to actually ensure that we have got adequate marine protection.In the select committee last week the Minister of Conservation noted that the responsibility for new marine protected areas legislation which we have been promised by this Government in every election is now going to be part of the responsibility of the Ministry for the Environment rather than the Department of Conservation. The concern is that we expedite special legislation to assist the oil companies but this Government fails to expedite legislation to actually protect parts of our exclusive economic zone. So we have no deep-sea marine reserves and if we have the Ministry for the Environment with its sustainable management function now being responsible for marine protection rather than the Department of Conservation which of course has the function of preserving and protecting natural resources we are likely to see a lot of Clayton’s marine reserves where fishing is allowed to continue and there may be just some restrictions on fishing methods. We are supporting this bill but there is a major gap in our law in that we do not have effective marine protection legislation.