Mackey Moana: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4523. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for the Environment for that clarification. Unfortunately section 17(2) actually says: “The activity may continue without a marine consent for a prescribed period or if no period is prescribed for the activity for 6 months from the date …”. One of the other issues that I wanted to raise was the extensive use of regulation in this area. Right through the bill we talk about prescribed periods. We were assured at the Local Government and Environment Committee that that prescribed period would pretty much be fewer than 6 months but we do not have any certainty around that. The prescribed period could be longer than 6 months in which case that would become a concern. 
On the issue that the Minister has just clarified and I thank her for doing that—and I am going to have to go back and have another read through it in light of what the Minister has said—I do think it might be good because I know that clause 40 I think which is around the incomplete applications— 
Hon Member 
: 42. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —42—does not have a time period in it. I wonder whether for clarification it might be useful because although I take on board what the Minister has said I am not necessarily convinced. As I said I will have to go back and have a read of it but maybe having a time frame in there just to clarify that there is not a loophole will be in everyone’s best interest. We will certainly go away and have a look at the amendments but the amendments might be better if they are drafted by the Minister and her very very able— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: PCO. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —Parliamentary Counsel Office. That would be useful. But I do think that would just clarify it because when I read through it—and we did a lot of work on clause 17 at the select committee—it did not jump out to me that it was that absolutely clear that once it was sent back as an incomplete application that time period still applied. Maybe clause 42 is where that clarification can be put in to say that this does not now suddenly just become never ending. I thank the Minister for that. 
Coming back to the issue of clause 17 I think it is a very real issue about what that means. I am sorry the Minister did not clarify new clause 17A about planned activities and what that might mean where permits are now currently issued because I know that there is deep concern amongst a lot of communities around the country that suddenly this is providing an awful lot more legal protection around the permits that are given out under the Crown Minerals Act or legal weighting and the ability to go on perhaps without having to go through the processes that we are setting up here. I would be as I said very very concerned if on the East Coast of the North Island where the activity has not started where structures are not in place the companies that have been issued the Crown Minerals Act permits were suddenly able to just go ahead and carry out drilling when in fact none of that has been done and we understood that they would have to go through this process. I look forward either tonight or the next time we discuss this to the Minister actually being able to address that.