Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4520. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call around Part 1A. I want to focus this contribution on two elements of the Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100. These are the amendments to clause 17 and the new clause 17A. These are two clauses that are representative of the concerns that were raised by members of the Opposition during the debate on Part 1 around matters being included in the Supplementary Order Paper that we believe need more attention certainly need more explanation and could have benefited from a referral back to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
In particular in that regard I want to note the amendment to clause 17 which does not even rate a mention in the Minister’s explanatory note of her Supplementary Order Paper. Clause 17 does not get a mention there. I am just checking right to the end of the explanatory note and no—no mention whatsoever of the justification for the amendment to clause 17. It manages to get new clause 17A in there briefly but there is absolutely nothing in the explanatory note to tell the Parliament why there should be the replacement of clause 17(3) that has been suggested in the Supplementary Order Paper. That is why the Opposition parties want this Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill referred back to the Local Government and Environment Committee because in the amended clause 17(3) we have a change that appears to create a very large loophole. There is no explanation from the Minister in her explanatory note. She has just dumped it on the Table and said: “Accept this.” 
Well if we have a look at the proposed new clause 17(3) that is here we see in it among other things: “If the person undertaking the activity applies for a marine consent within the period described in subsection (2) the activity may continue after the period has expired until the application—… (b) is returned as incomplete under section 42 and any objections and appeals are determined.” So what that clause could be doing is saying that if someone has an application and it is returned by the Environmental Protection Authority as being incomplete that process can carry on. That process can actually carry on ad infinitum because when you look at the referenced clause 42 it actually says that every time it is returned—if it is incomplete and then it is returned—it is considered to be a new application. So we could be launching into a continuous process here for an application that is returned as incomplete. 
But we have got no explanation from the Minister as to why we should be agreeing today to allow for a situation that would see an incomplete application simply carry on—no explanation whatsoever from the Minister for that. There may well be a good explanation. This may well not be the giant loophole that it looks like but from this side of the Chamber it is very hard to tell. An incomplete application is an incomplete application. It has not met the rules. It should not be being processed except that under this provision it gets an exception and then it gets to come back again as a new application. So the Minister may want to take a call and explain to the Committee having completely failed to put any explanation in the explanatory note on this matter why that clause has arrived. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Maybe she has an old legal opinion about it. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: A legal opinion! That would be right. We had a bit of a struggle with that along the way. I hope the Minister does take a call because this is the problem with dropping a large Supplementary Order Paper like this on the Table without the opportunity for proper select committee analysis of it. 
Then we come to the new clause 17A which at least does get a mention in the explanatory note. This is a clause that allows for planned petroleum activities to commence and continue. Let us be absolutely clear about what this new clause is doing. It is talking about planned activities—not just existing activities but planned activities. So what this does is it says they both “may commence and continue”. What stage are some of the activities around New Zealand up to at the moment—whether they are existing or planned? This clause is effectively saying that if it is planned it can carry on. It is the green light for some projects that have potentially been causing concern around New Zealand. 
So we have got two clauses here in Part 1A that I believe have come to this Committee without adequate explanation and that appear to me to look like clauses that are loopholes. We have to I believe have a more adequate explanation.