Simpson Scott: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4625. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):I rise to speak in the third reading debate on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill in the name of my friend and colleague Dr Nick Smith the Minister for the Environment and I do so with great pleasure. As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee I was able to work diligently and carefully with other hard-working members of the committee and we were able I think to do as the previous speaker has just indicated—bring back to the House a piece of legislation that is better than the legislation that was introduced at the first reading.I would like to spend just a minute both acknowledging and I guess criticising to a degree the contribution of the previous speaker. Dr Megan Woods is a valuable and diligent member of the committee and usually she makes a very good and energetic contribution as she has in the debate this afternoon. Listening to her one would have to think that some great terrible misdeed has actually occurred here when in fact there was simply nothing done to protect our exclusive economic zone during 9 long years of a Labour administration—her predecessors. I accept fully that that member was not in Government or in Parliament during those 9 long years and so has no personal responsibility but for her to stand up and wax eloquent about the shortcomings of this Government on legislation that has so well protected our exclusive economic zone rings a little bit hollow and strikes a sharp tone.Energy is absolutely essential to every aspect of our modern daily life. We use energy in every sphere of human activity here in the country from the north to the very deep south and everybody is involved as an energy user in some shape or form. Energy is vital for our factories our hospitals our transportation the production of chemicals and fertilisers manufacturing construction travel heating cooking and pretty much every aspect of our day-to-day lives. We in New Zealand have been fortunate to have always had a secure source of energy with the vast majority of our electricity being produced from renewables but occasionally we require gas to make up a shortfall when there has been a period of low rainfall. Back in the 1970s because of the development work done on the Māui platform we were fortunate as a nation to discover that we had significant oil and gas reserves off the coast of Taranaki. This bill provides the Shell Todd Oil Services organisation with continuity by allowing its operations which have been working very successfully off the coast of Taranaki for nearly 50 years now—in a very sensible and safe way I might add—to continue that process and to continue making a very significant contribution to the energy requirements and needs of us as a nation.A marine consent is required under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and it is required so that organisations such as Shell Todd Oil Services are able to continue their extractive businesses. As I have said they have been doing that for a long number of years now based in that oil-rich region of Taranaki on the west coast of the North Island. Shell Todd Oil Services is a business that is owned by Shell Petroleum Mining Co. and Todd Petroleum Mining Co. which each hold a 50 percent stake in the company. During those more than 50 years of operations Shell Todd Oil Services has set incredibly high and stringent operational environmental and safety benchmarks and they are leaders in the New Zealand oil and gas industry. What this bill means is that the marine consent—which subsequently has been granted by the Environmental Protection Authority since the introduction of this bill—will allow the company to continue operating beyond 27 June of this year. That was not the case when the bill was first introduced and had we not passed this legislation prior to the end of the month then the simple reality is that production would have needed to cease on the site and up to 20 percent—maybe it is more than 20 percent—of our energy needs as a nation would have been put at risk. In fact now that the application has been granted there is still a requirement for this legislation to pass before the 27th of the month in order to cover the situation of an appeal being lodged to the provision of that consent being issued. So this is why this legislation is still required.In her speech just a few minutes ago Dr Megan Woods made mention of the work done at the Local Government and Environment Committee. As chair of the select committee I also want to acknowledge the work done by committee members and I also acknowledge with grateful thanks the five submitters who presented on the bill because they did make good points. This was an example of a select committee working as it should in order to ensure that a better outcome occurs. The Local Government and Environment Committee examined the bill very carefully and we examined the amendments that had been put before us and then we listened carefully to the points that the submitters made. The net result of that deliberation was that an amendment to clause 4 was recommended by the committee which would provide for a replacement section 162(5) to specify that the existing petroleum operators must lodge a marine consent application and have it fully accepted by the Environmental Protection Authority at least 9 months before either the expiry of their permit or their privilege to extract gas or oil.We did consider a number of alternatives to the 9-month time frame. We looked at 6 months we looked at 9 months and we looked at 12 months and each option was considered by the committee. Eventually we settled on 9 months as I think a reasonable compromise. In a second reading speech my colleague Todd Muller the deputy chair of the committee made the point that any corporate employee worth his or her salt would simply never allow a situation to arise where the ability to trade and to operate their business was put in jeopardy by not having their consent in place and in full prior to that privilege or permit expiring. I think he made a good point when he raised that matter so we have stuck—sorry “stuck” is probably not the right word. We have now included as part of this legislation a clause that ensures that it is codified that there is a 9-month window and that businesses operating in the area must have that done before the 9 months are up.We looked at further amending clause 4 to include a further change to section 162(5) to clarify that those existing mining activities would need to have the applications filed 9 months before their privilege came to an end and that it must be in filing acceptable. It must be in a format that is acceptable and accepted by the Environmental Protection Authority as being in full. I think those changes made at the select committee were in fact very good changes. They were common sense sensible changes and the committee acted I think in a very prudent and diligent way. We worked well together. As I said Shell Todd Oil Services has now actually been granted its permit to continue production but there is still a chance that there may be an appeal and that is why this bill is important. We simply could not find ourselves or put ourselves as a nation in a position where up to 20 percent of New Zealand’s current gas supply would be uncertain in any way. This bill will not change anything for existing operators other than allow Shell Todd Oil Services to continue production pending any appeal that may yet be lodged. It is a good piece of legislation. It is a good piece of legislation to amend an even better principal Act and it has I think good support across the House. I think that this bill will be an example of how this legislature works collaboratively and congenially to achieve good outcomes for the country. It is a good bill and I commend it to the House.