Little Andrew: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10225. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): The title of the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill speaks for itself. This is a tidy-up bill because the last bill—now the Crown Minerals Amendment Act—was such a mess because it did not have the requisite attention paid to it. We are now passing an amending tidying-up improving piece of legislation that will have very little scrutiny at all—certainly not the sort of scrutiny that ought to apply in a bill dealing with an issue that is so important.The primary purpose of this bill is to split the approval process over the different stages of oil and gas exploration—and that is approval for the health and safety as well as the environmental aspects or measures to be taken—first of all for prospecting the second stage for exploration and then subsequently for production. It is about splitting up that process so we have the separate process after the first one for the prospecting part of it.It deals with the regime that is set up in the new Crown Minerals Amendment Act but the reality is that that regime is already pretty light. If you have a look at new section 29A in the Crown Minerals Amendment Act and look at what is required for the Minister to approve a permit in terms of health and safety in subsection (2)(b) of new section 29A it says the Minister must be satisfied “that the applicant is likely to comply with”—not “is required to” not “will” but “is likely to comply with”—“and give proper effect to the … work programme taking into account—(i) the applicant’s technical capability;”. It is not as the Health and Safety in Employment Act would have it which is the industry knowledge available at the time but the very subjective test of “(i) the applicant’s technical capability; and (ii) the applicant’s financial capability;”—so if it is a small company it gets let off the hook—and then “(iii) any relevant information …”. A later paragraph says that the Minister “is only required to undertake a high-level preliminary assessment;”. That is actually a pretty light approach to health and safety and environmental safeguards when it comes to this important economic activity. This bill now seeks to split that up and effectively to make it even lighter.There is another aspect to it too which is that the whole workplace health and safety regime in this country is undergoing change—radical change long-overdue change but change that has been prompted first of all by the Pike River disaster and secondly by the review that this Government under the previous Minister of Labour very sensibly initiated of which we have now seen the report. Both the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and the Government’s own health and safety advisory group have recommended radical change in health and safety. So that is all in play at the moment. Now we have this bill which is seeking to weaken an already very light regime for this industry at the permit-setting process.One thing was very clear that came out of the royal commission on Pike River and that was that health and safety was an issue that had to be considered at the very beginning of mining prospecting and development not as an afterthought once production got under way. I fear that the provision in this bill that softens an already pretty weak provision in the bill that we amended just months ago is going to make that worse. In that respect this bill may be seen as being somewhat premature in relation to the other health and safety changes that this Government and this Minister in fact with his Minister of Labour hat on are already meant to be managing through.But there is another issue that I think is even more compelling—another reason that is even more compelling—to justify why we are opposed to this bill. It comes out of something that the honourable Jonathan Young said. Jonathan Young referred to some of the companies that are active certainly in Taranaki: Schlumberger—and with all due respect Mr Young did not quite get the pronunciation right—Shell and Halliburton with that well-known international reputation for good faith and ethical conduct.These are giant multinational corporations. Halliburton has a balance sheet that probably surpasses New Zealand’s. We are saying to these companies: “Come here. You can do your prospecting. We will give you a permit for that. But once you have done your prospecting don’t expect to get your exploration permit. You have to come for a second process for that.” But the reality is that we know what this Government is like when large multinational corporates turn up at its door and want a special deal. It goes weak at the knees it quivers and it gives up rolls over and has its belly tickled and before you know it the New Zealand taxpayer is shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to prop up the multinational. That is the way the Government conducts itself. That is the legacy of this tawdry grubby little National Government that we have at the moment.I can imagine Halliburton turning up—probably Dick Cheney himself an emeritus director of Halliburton will turn up have a cup of tea with John Key and say: “Oh you gave us the permit for this bit. Give us the permit for the next bit.” Somehow Simon Bridges the neophyte Minister of Energy and Resources and Minister of Labour is meant to stand up to Dick Cheney and Halliburton or Schlumberger or Shell and say: “Oh no we are tough here. We are tough with our regulatory regime and we are going to say no. You can start all over again and prove that you have got in place the health and safety and the environmental safeguards that we demand.”The problem with that is it just is not credible. It is not credible given the track record of this Government. When Warner Bros came here wanting a law change sponsored by Sir Peter Jackson what did this Government do? It laid on the limos. It put on the hospitality took Warner Bros representatives up to Premier House wined and dined them and gave up everything. What did the Government do when Skycity Casino took the Prime Minister out to dinner? That was it—deal done convention centre built a 35-year licence and an attempt to buy Parliament and its sovereign rights. That is how disgracefully low our ethical standards are now.And now this party in Government comes to this Parliament all in a heated rush as part of the Budget process and says: “Listen we got the last set of amendments so wrong we have to get the changes in now and by the way we want to make this change which gives these multinationals the opportunity to stand over us and to leverage the partial permission we have already given them in this very crucial and sensitive industry.” That is what this Government is asking us to do. That is what this Minister wants us to do. It is tragic it is wrong and it is the reason we are opposed to the bill.The oil and gas industry is a very important industry to this country and indeed to the world and what we do the way we manage it is given close scrutiny from all around the world from the operators and from others too. It is an industry where the industry players now expect high standards of regulatory conduct. They expect it and are not fazed by it. But they will see an opportunity if they see weakness in a regulatory authority and if they see a Government demonstrating weakness they will be all over it. There is nothing to lose in having a Government that is prepared to set the highest standards of health and safety and the highest standards for environmental safeguards in this industry but this Government is going in the opposite direction. It is a great disappointment it is wrong it should not be happening and that is why we will be opposing this bill.