Foster-Bell Paul: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4636. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this third reading debate on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill—that is quite a mouthful. I would like to begin by thanking Ron Mark the member who just resumed his seat for his gracious comments about the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. If I could also add my support for what he said it is a great pleasure to work under the chairmanship of the member for Coromandel Mr Scott Simpson who does I think approach these matters in a very cross-party and multipartisan way to get the best-possible results putting aside the politics of these things.This is a very important issue for New Zealand and I have to disclose I suppose on the record that I did my Business and Parliament Trust work placement recently with Todd Energy a very fine company and a New Zealand - owned business. It is probably the largest New Zealand - owned private business operating in this country. Todd Energy has been producing energy in the Taranaki region for 40 years now and has done so in a very safe and effective manner—environmentally sustainably in terms of certainly not producing any spills or environmental degradation—but also with great regard for the safety of its staff and the people who work in its facilities.This is a very important issue for New Zealand because this is a field that produces 20 percent of our natural gas supply. This is not just what we cook with and what perhaps heats our water for our morning showers if we use gas as a consumer but whilst doing my placement with Todd Energy I had the opportunity to see how else the gas is used. It is exported and is a valuable export commodity for New Zealand. Not only does it earn us those export dollars but it is often shipped up into the Pacific region to places that do not have the same energy resources that we do. It is very important for those small economies.Also it is used in the peaking power industry. It operates gas turbine power plants so that in situations where we have a drought and have insufficient water in our lakes to sustain the generation of hydro power or at other times when there is a high demand such as during the cold snaps we have experienced over the last few days it will use natural gas to fire turbines and supplement the baseload that is produced by more sustainable means such as the hydro and geothermal plants in New Zealand. So it is a very important issue.We have had some contributions from across the House that I think actually necessitate my putting the record straight. I do not want to be ungracious myself. I welcome the change of heart or at least the coming to their senses of the Green Party in voting for this bill and I also welcome the support from Labour and New Zealand First—in fact I welcome the universal support of this House for this piece of legislation. But there have been some comments made in the debate that do necessitate a response I believe—firstly from Mr Nash. I acknowledge Mr Nash’s expertise in this industry. He himself has worked in the petrochemical industry. But Mr Nash accusing the Government of making sloppy amendments or in fact making amendments to sloppy legislation is a little bit rich given Labour was the Government that passed the Police Act for which extraordinary urgency was required to correct a drafting error that had led to a large number—dozens—of New Zealand police constables not being correctly sworn in. It potentially could have had very grave ramifications for the administration of justice in New Zealand.Similarly Gareth Hughes when he made his contribution claimed that we have the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world. This is not correct. When consulting publicly available sources on the internet you will see that we are the eighth-largest or ninth-largest depending on the definitions used unless you want to include the Realm of New Zealand which are the small countries that we are in free association with—Niue Tokelau the Cook Islands and parts of Antarctica. I think it would be a far cry for the Greens to be embarking on that sort of imperialism where we would want to claim the resources of those countries with which we have close relationships but we do not purport to own what is under their seabed or in fact the fisheries and other resources that go with that exclusive economic zone. So I think it is important to correct those issues.Shell Todd Oil Services is the first and probably the foremost company when it comes to passing this amendment in that it had a permit that expired on 27 June. It is true that that situation is less problematic now given that it has been given an approved permit but there is a matter of principle here. We came in as a Government when there was no protection whatsoever for an exclusive economic zone. We had had 40 years of oil companies and gas exploration in New Zealand with very limited controls and now I am quite proud to be part of a Government that has brought in comprehensive and consistent controls and a process for registering and seeking permits to be able to explore and extract petrochemicals and gas.It probably should be unsurprising to us that with such a substantial and also new and innovative piece of legislation there will be issues that need to be amended. This is a correctly named bill in that it is a transitional provisions amendment bill. So it is Shell Todd Oil Services that is the first beneficiary if you like of this piece of legislation but there are several other companies that have permits expiring out through the 2020s for which this bill was also required to give them sufficient time to lodge their applications and have them reasonably heard and also to give our environmental protection agencies sufficient time to review those applications and make sure they are making a well-advised and fair decision on those particular cases.In the select committee—and I think other members such as Major Mark referenced this—we did hear differing views. My personal view was that an application period of 6 months by which a company must lodge a consent for its marine permit is a reasonable time. That was my personal view. I particularly favoured 6 months because it was in line with the Crown Minerals Act. I thought consistency between exploration onshore and offshore was fairly important. But as Mr Mark referenced we are a fair and reasonable committee. Our ears were open. We listened to the arguments that were made. It was not my personal preference but we came to a time line of 9 months by which that application must be lodged prior to its expiration date. Although my preference was for 6 months I think 9 months is a good compromise. It is something that the companies will be able to manage and ensure that they continue to function producing that valuable export commodity and energy for the New Zealand market.As the law currently stands were we not to pass this bill those current applicants and operators that are applying for marine consents would find themselves in breach of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act if they continued operating beyond the expiry date of their permits under the Crown minerals regime—the previous regime—even if there was an appeal in process. To me that strikes as something that is manifestly unfair. If you have got your application in in good time but you are going through a very lengthy appeal process—and it can take many months even years for some of these technical details to be fully worked through in the appeals process—it does seem somewhat unfair that that company would be unduly penalised and that is without even taking into account the knock-on effect on New Zealand energy consumers and the wider economy. So we simply cannot afford to have an energy resource—a gasfield that produces 20 percent of our domestic supply—to have any uncertainty over its operations and for this reason I welcome the support of other parties in the House.I also need to note that this bill does not change anything for other operators. Those that have their existing permits and consents in place will continue to be able to explore and extract until their applications are further decided. If the amendments were not made before 27 June then Shell Todd Oil Services would have found itself in breach of the 2012 Act if it was operating without a marine consent. So it is very timely that we are passing this legislation. In fact one might say we are even getting it in a little bit early before that final deadline.This is an important piece of legislation. I welcome the cross-party consensus on this bill and I do commend it to the House.