Seymour David: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 26 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:2013. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): A former long-serving and very honourable member of this House has counselled me to stay for the full debate and listen to what other members have to say so that I can actually join into the debate and contribute to it rather than showing up reading a speech and leaving. I am mindful that if I was to respond properly to everything that I have just heard I would completely run out of time before I got to make any points of my own.But I have to say what a bizarre contribution from Gareth Hughes. He told us that this is not just a technical amendment—despite it being only 6 pages—and that it is actually a bending and breaking of the law. Well let us just be clear about what this bill does. It says that Shell Todd Oil Services can continue doing what it was already able to do before new legislation and regulation was introduced and it will still have this new legislation and regulation and its full effects applied to it. However it will be given more time so it does not come to be in contravention of these new laws and regulations. So if anything what we are seeing is additional regulation of the offshore oil industry. I cannot believe that the Green Party would be against that.He then complained that the Government frequently bends the rule of law for example to help people doing oil exploration who find themselves to be under threat from protest. What exactly does he want us to do? Does he really believe that anybody he happens to disagree with does not deserve the protection of the rule of law and actually should be forced to live in a world of anarchy? And then for the ultimate oddity he said that he is lodging a protest vote. He wants to see this bill go to the select committee but he is not actually going to vote for it to do so. As Ōtara Millionaires Club used to sing “How bizarre”.Then we had Eugenie Sage from the Green Party say that we are not thinking about community. This really goes to the heart of what this debate is about. Actually $40 million a year approximately $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion each and every year about 0.5 percent of the country’s GDP—yes that does have an effect on the community and we are going to hear about this more and more.Although this is a small technical bill it brings into stark relief the way that the extractive industry and regulation are very tightly linked. If we look around the world we can see just how much of a contribution the extractive industries make economically. This is particularly important at a time when places in regional New Zealand—like the Northland area for example—are facing declining and ageing populations and serious problems funding their local governments and yet they have the large potential to create jobs and become wealthier through extractive industries.You can see this all over the world. In Alberta for example the province of Canada that has the most extractive industries you have a median family income of $94000. In Newfoundland and Labrador from whence people commute by aeroplane to work in those industries it is $70000. It is very clear. In Western Australia it is $68000. In Tasmania it is $48000. Again the contrast that you get from having extractive industries and what that can do for regions—particularly regions that are facing economic challenges and do not feel like rock star economies—is very very large. Have a look for example a little bit closer to home. The average income in Taranaki is $74000 for a household and in Northland it is $60000. This is the economic difference that it makes.Hon Simon Bridges: So why do the Greens oppose it?DAVID SEYMOUR: Because they do not think that making money is actually beneficial for the community Mr Bridges. That is the problem. And perhaps another prejudice that we should raise here is that there tends to be a belief in some quarters that the extractive industries are not sexy and cool and sophisticated. Did we not see that come out with the member Gareth Hughes waxing liberal about what we could be doing with the so-called smart economy? Well as someone who has had one or two things to do with a few people who work in this industry I can tell you that the extractive industries—oil and gas for instance—are enormously sophisticated high-productivity industries working with large amounts of capital and that might explain why the average wage for a New Zealander is $50000 and the average wage for someone in the mineral industry is $105000. The ACT Party wholeheartedly supports this bill. Thank you very much.