Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. The ACT Party supported this legislation to go to select committee where it could be properly evaluated. It turns out that despite the objective being laudable to improve the regulation of the decommissioning of petroleum structures and installations it turns out that the Government has oversold the benefits and wasn't clear and honest about all the risks.Now ACT supports the concept of polluter pays" and that operators should take responsibility for decommissioning their oil and gas assets at the end of their life. We support making it a statutory obligation where previously there was no obligation. We can also support the ability of the Crown to assess the financial capability of petroleum permit holders to undertake their obligations. But what the ACT Party can never support is a trailing or perpetual liability on directors of companies who have undertaken and fulfilled their duties according to the law to environmental best practice who have met their social and economic obligations to communities and shareholders alike but would find that in years following their association with a business that may have been successful they are held criminally liable for decisions taken by officers of the business in operational roles quite remote from the governance role that they held as directors. ACT cannot support that. It is chilling destructive and will have a very negative impact on any business intention to invest in New Zealand. It will result in the hollowing out of investment in quality businesses and a reduction in the quality of people who are prepared to stand up and become directors of companies.We also do not support the creation of a post-decommissioning fund. Now as a civil and environmental engineer I've been involved in decommissioning extremely hazardous facilities like timber treatment operations and closed landfills for example. But at the end of the process an engineer a scientist a planner have to get together and propose to regional councils or to the regulator that they have cleaned up and decommissioned that facility as best as possible to manage the foreseeable risks. At that point if you have a resource consent for an operation or a facility the regulator will sign it off and say "Here's your bond back. We recognise that you have fulfilled your obligations as far as reasonably practicable at this point in time"—notwithstanding any other acts of God that might happen in years or decades to come for which no director no company should be held liable or could possibly plan for.That's why if we're talking about liability engineers design buildings to withstand a certain earthquake load not the unimaginable earthquake that might occur sometime in the future. They have to pick an actual earthquake level that they design for. There's no point in designing for an earthquake that's so enormous that might have happened once or might possibly happen in the future. You have to design for the risk that you can reasonably foresee. And so once a decommissioning activity is complete then at that point the directors in the company should be released from any future obligations.Now we also oppose a mandatory financial security. If a business can demonstrate that they have the financial capability and the expertise to fulfil their obligations then that should be sufficient. If however they choose to enter into an arrangement with a regulator where they would prefer to put up a bond or put up a security voluntarily rather than manage that themselves with their own bondholder then that's entirely up to them. But it should not be mandatory. We also find that the concept of a default to total removal of all structures—we're talking about the bases the feet of very large oil rigs or other installations made out of steel which might sit on the seafloor. They're covered in barnacles. They're home to octopus. They are a treasure trove of biodiversity where they stand in the natural environment. Yet this regulation and the Minister who's left the House because there's obviously not enough there's—Hon Member: You can't say that.SIMON COURT: Clearly the information that's been presented is too hot. But default total removal means that actually businesses involved in petroleum exploration field development will have to remove things that could reasonably be left in place based on the opinion of an environmental scientist or a marine biologist or an ecologist who might say "Look look at the flora and fauna growing on the legs of this wonderful old structure. It's like a shipwreck on the seafloor. There's no reason why it should have to be removed as long as it's made safe as long as it meets the threshold of a low risk." So the ACT Party opposes the default to total removal of all structures. It's nonsensical. Now when we think about what decommissioning is it must address the reasonable risks and that is all. The reasonable risks include—look what's the balance in terms of health and safety versus environmental performance if you have to send divers down to remove things that were never intended to be deconstructed or removed. It's only more recently that we've actually designed structures and buildings for example with the idea that they will in fact one day be deconstructed. Many things built in the past were not designed in that way and it's very dangerous to try to remove them particularly if you're talking about places where there are significant currents and movements on the seafloor. So decommissioning should be limited to what is required to meet environmental objectives while taking care of the health and safety of the workers involved and make sure that what's left behind is recorded so that we know what's left behind. But that should be the limit of it. As I've pointed out when comparing this regime to a resource consenting or a building consenting regime it's important to note that this proposed legislation goes far beyond what is required in order to make sure that businesses fulfil their obligations to leave the environment behind in a suitable state and manage all the risks before they go to a low level of risk. Not zero risk not no risk ever for ever in perpetuity but to an acceptable level of risk that is a low risk.Now this flawed piece of legislation has also threatened to drag in mining and quarrying. We have submissions from mining and quarrying organisations who have said "Look this bill is not clear enough. It's supposed to address the risk of petroleum installations but it also drags us in." The mining and quarrying activities already have resource consents. They already have bonds in place. They already have consent conditions that they have to meet around making safe their sites when they leave deconstructing any structures replanting and leaving the environment—in many cases—a much better place than they found it. Just like the OceanaGold Reefton Globe Progress Mine rehabilitation which is an example of one of the best mine rehabilitations ever carried out anywhere in the world. New Zealand can be proud that businesses operating here are operating to a very high standard of environmental performance and that must be taken into account. New Zealand businesses are good at this stuff. Engineers and scientists based here are good at this stuff and they should be trusted not punished not having their directors penalised—in fact discouraged.What this bill represents is actually an attack on business. It's an attack on business confidence. We've seen for the first time since the global financial crisis (GFC) that New Zealanders have less confidence in Government now than at any other time since the GFC. And legislation like this only contributes to and compounds the sense that the Government running this country doesn't understand how business operates what communities need to be successful. They are not listening. They have demonstrated time and again that despite the best evidence from businesses who say "We want a better environment." that's not enough. They won't listen to them. For that reason ACT opposes this bill. We do not believe that the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill should proceed beyond this point. Thank you Madam Speaker."