Mackey Moana: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4522. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to talk about the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 and I want to start with new clause 17A which is for planned activities not just existing activities and I should say that these are transitional arrangements. This is recognising that there is already some activity taking place in the exclusive economic zone. Obviously there needs to be some way of bringing them into this legislation without being too disruptive to those who are already carrying out activities. 
When we were discussing the transitional provisions at the Local Government and Environment Committee there were some concerns that we had around those existing activity provisions. We just wanted to make sure that there were not going to be any gaps that might result in some kind of accident because it fell through a gap that we put in when we put these transitional provisions in place. We were reassured I think by and large—I mean there were some arguments around some of the time frames and whether it was too short or too long and industry had one point of view and the environmental organisations had another point of view. But ultimately I think we got to the point where we thought: “OK well the provisions for existing activities—probably there are not too many gaps in those.” 
The reason that we were convinced of that is that it kept being raised time and time again that this was not about stuff that was just planned—this was about stuff that was already happening. So if we were to just shut that down it would mean actually stopping something that was already happening as opposed to something where someone had said: “Well we’re intending to do this but we haven’t started yet.” That was the point that reassured us. So to suddenly see that in this Supplementary Order Paper we are now extending out transitional provisions for planned activities which we were reassured at the select committee would not happen is really concerning—very very concerning. 
I would like the Minister to take a call on this in all sincerity. I just want to read this out. The definition of “planned petroleum activity” it says here “means an activity involved with the exploration prospecting or mining for petroleum if before the new regulations come into force—(a) the exploration prospecting or mining for petroleum with which the activity is involved is authorised by a permit”—basically under the Crown Minerals Act—“and (b) the activity has not commenced.” 
What I would like to know from the Minister is what this means for the permit that has been issued on the East Coast of the North Island to Petrobras. At the moment it has carried out seismic surveying so that would be considered an existing activity and there are clauses to deal with that and that is all fine and good. It has not yet done any drilling. I want to know whether this transitional provision means that because it has been given a permit by the Crown under the Crown Minerals Act and because that activity has not yet continued is it going to be able to go out and drill in the Raukumara Basin which is 3000 to 4000 metres deep without having to get a marine consent and without having to go through a full process that involves public consultation and the ability for the community that I live in on the East Coast to have a say? 
Maybe I have got that wrong but my reading of the bill is that that could be how this is interpreted. I would really like the Minister to reassure me that this is not saying that just because something was planned and someone has been given a permit they are now basically exempt and will not have to go through the processes that we are setting out in this piece of legislation—they will not have to go through those processes because it was a planned activity. 
That is very different from an existing activity where someone is already doing something and it would be unreasonable to say: “You now have to stop and go through all these processes.” because they have made investments and that is absolutely fine and good. But where they have not started that activity and where the structures are not currently in place they should have to go through the full processes in this piece of legislation. 
I would like some clarity from the Minister around that because obviously that will be very concerning as we have the Government going out and issuing more and more permits under the Crown Minerals Act. Before this legislation has gone through Parliament before the regulations have been finalised it is out there issuing permits. That now suddenly carries much greater legal weight than this clause in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper because under the bill as it came back from select committee that did not mean that just because they had the permit they were going to be able to avoid the processes in this bill. They would still have to go through them because they were not already doing that activity. This now says—or suggests to me—that they do not have to go through those processes that they could just go out there and drill in the Raukumara Basin without going through a process that ensures that environmental protection is considered before they start carrying out those activities. I would like the Minister to respond to that. 
And then clause 17 and replacing clause 17(3) and introducing a major loophole is also an issue. Maybe even if there was a time frame that was inserted within that clause— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: There is. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Minister says there is—