Clendon David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Clendon David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:18019] 
7. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
 to the  
Acting Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Did Petrobras provide an emergency response plan outlining how they would stop a catastrophic oil leak or spill before the Government issued them a permit to explore for oil and drill off the East Cape? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The Government awarded Petrobras a 5-year exploration permit that allows Petrobras to acquire and interpret 2-D and 3-D seismic data and to drill one exploratory well. If Petrobras decides to proceed to drilling an exploratory well before any drilling operation can go ahead it will have to develop a discharge of management plan which must be approved by the Director of Maritime New Zealand. 
David Clendon 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was on notice and was quite a simple straightforward question: was a response plan provided by Petrobras before the Government issued a permit? I do not believe that the Minister answered that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point of order is a fair one. The question was on notice and the answer did not advise the House as to whether any emergency response plan had been provided prior to the issue of the permit. It may well be that the Minister thinks such a plan was not necessary but as the question was on notice the House deserves an answer as to whether a plan was provided. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: If I could clarify by explaining the staged nature of the permit that has been made available to Petrobras: different steps are required at different stages. The 2-D and 3-D seismic mapping has to occur before an exploratory well can be drilled. If it were to be drilled then at that point a discharge plan would be required. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My apologies but again the question was not answered. It asked whether Petrobras had provided that report before the permit was issued. The Minister did not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe on this occasion she provided an answer. As I heard her answer she said that for the initial seismic mapping work that is being done no such plan was required. Therefore obviously no such plan was provided. That is quite clear from what she said. The members can question her further about that but that was my understanding of what she said. So the answer is clearly no. The Minister explained to the House that the permit provided for only certain things to happen. If I am wrong on that I invite the Minister to correct that understanding. I think it was a fair question on notice and it deserved an answer but I believe that it has now been answered. 
David Clendon 
: Interpreting the Minister’s answer to the previous question as no could she tell us why the Government is permitting any foreign oil company to explore and drill for oil in deep water without first providing an emergency response plan to be followed in the event of a leak or a spill? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I reject the premise of that question actually. As I explained in my primary answer there is a staged process within the permit. At each stage different steps are required. Since we have not reached the stage at which an exploratory well might be drilled the particular response necessary for it has yet to be considered. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are now in a difficult situation. You interpreted if you like the answer the Minister gave as no which we accepted and therefore our point of order did not carry the day—she had answered the question. The Minister is now saying she did not say no. Therefore she did not answer the question in the way that you interpreted. So she never answered the question at all. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A serious primary question was asked and I am taking these points of order seriously. Forgive me but as I understood what the Minister said the second time round—and this may not be correct—I heard her say that because the staged permit does not at this stage provide for drilling no emergency response plan was considered necessary. As I heard the Minister’s answer she indicated that no such plan was required. None has been given because the staged permit that has been issued does not at this stage provide for exploratory drilling. If I have got that wrong let us hear the correction. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The permit does provide for an exploratory well to be drilled but only after the 2-D mapping and then the 3-D mapping stages have been completed. If the data is sufficient for the company then it can go to the next stage at which point further requirements would be triggered. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was that a point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I consider it it was actually the Minister giving a fuller answer. That was my interpretation of what happened there. Does that answer assist the members? 
David Clendon 
: Recognising that the Minister may not be aware that a discharge permit is not an emergency response plan does she agree with Dr Nick Smith Minister for the Environment who said this morning that there are deficiencies in environmental protection in the exclusive economic zone where the Petrobras permit allows it to drill? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: If I could reply to the first part of the question in fact my answer referred to a discharge management plan not to a discharge permit as the member suggested. 
David Clendon 
: Can the Minister tell us how a new piece of legislation will plug an oil leak in the event of an accident on a deep-water drilling rig? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was such noise around the House that I could not hear the question. I ask the member to repeat it please. 
David Clendon 
: Can the Minister tell us how a new piece of legislation will plug an oil leak in the event of an accident on a deep-water drilling rig? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I do not know which new piece of legislation the member is talking about I cannot answer the question. 
David Clendon 
: Does the Minister expect that a team of 400 New Zealanders will be able to cope with a catastrophic oil leak or spill when 7000 US Coast Guard personnel and over 40000 other emergency personnel were not able to contain the Deepwater Horizon leak for some 86 days? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Maritime New Zealand is responsible for ensuring New Zealand is prepared for and able to respond to marine oil spills. The Marine Pollution Response Service consists of internationally respected experts who manage and train a team of around 400 local government and Maritime New Zealand responders. New Zealand has equipment and other stores strategically located around New Zealand. In addition the Marine Pollution Response Service assists regional councils with exercise and oil spill equipment. The plan is responsive and is regularly evaluated to ensure it meets changing risk profiles. Should the pattern of oil exploration— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is an extensive answer to clearly a different question. Can I suggest that the member just table it? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to raise a point of order. The answer that was being given did not focus exactly on the question asked and that was the dilemma. The question asked whether the Minister believed that New Zealand’s 400 people involved in some kind of response team in the situation described could achieve more success than thousands of people in the United States of America did during the recent Gulf of Mexico spill. It was just an opinion being sought from the Minister. Admittedly we got an interesting answer about how currently New Zealand responds to such an emergency but that was not the question asked. The question asked was whether the Minister believed that our 400 people could do better than the US thousands. It is just an opinion being sought. I would be grateful if the Minister would answer it. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I was giving a rather long answer to the hyperbole that was in the question in order to reassure members that the plan is responsive and regularly evaluated— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Far be it from me to be your protector but I think that if there had been hyperbole in the question you would have ruled it out. Therefore that statement was a reflection on you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. I am trying to get us through this particular question and to get members some satisfaction on answers they are seeking. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To help the Green MP could he rephrase his question to suggest that the Minister’s  
Hansard 
 be used as an alternative to the bill to plug the hole? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let us be reasonable and go back. The question was an opinion question. It was within the Standing Orders. An opinion was being sought. The Minister does not have to give any particular opinion but the question should be addressed one way or another as it was asked. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The point I was getting to was that the plan is responsive and regularly evaluated to ensure it meets changing risk profiles. So should the pattern of oil exploration or production change Maritime New Zealand would change its response accordingly specific to New Zealand’s situation. Thank you. 
David Clendon 
: Given that the Gulf of Mexico disaster was stopped only when a second rig drilled a relief well does she expect Petrobras to provide a second rig in case there is a catastrophic leak in the exploratory well? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: This is asking me to—well I am asking you Mr Speaker for a point of clarification. This is a hypothesis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House will be silent. Members are entitled to ask hypothetical questions but obviously there is no precise answer to a hypothetical question. Whether a second rig would be provided to drill a second hole if anything went wrong with the first is a hypothetical question and the Minister is perfectly at liberty to say—it is a hypothetical question seeking a view and there is no precise answer to it. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Thank you for your guidance Mr Speaker. The response would be appropriate to the circumstances. 
David Clendon 
: In interpreting that as the Minister not expecting Petrobras to provide a second rig does she have an estimate of the length of time it would take for a second rig to arrive in New Zealand to drill a relief well in the event of an accident? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. Does she agree with Dr Apirana Mahuika that it was not Petrobras that was the genesis of the problems on the East Coast but rather the Crown; if so what process improvements will she consider for future applications in order to ensure comprehensive and timely consultation with iwi? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I am very open to suggestions on improvements and I look forward to discussing these with Dr Mahuika and with others. 
David Clendon 
: Given the significant environmental risks associated with deep-water drilling and noting that the Gulf of Mexico incident involved over 50000 emergency personnel and the spending of some US$39 billion what resources are available in New Zealand to cope with a major oil spill that were not available to the US Government? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Maritime New Zealand is responsible for ensuring that New Zealand is prepared and it does so through the Marine Pollution Response Service.