Mark Ron: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4634. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (NZ First):I am pleased to be able to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and make what will be the final contribution to this piece of legislation the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I think that the debate so far has pretty much traversed everything that could be said about what is quite a small bill. It seems to occupy a lot of the House’s time for its size but clearly the bill amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. I remind the House of that because that is actually where the problem was created in case people have forgotten that.New Zealand First acknowledges that our exclusive economic zone is one of the largest in the world and together with our extended continental shelf is about 21 times the size of our land mass. That places huge responsibility on this nation in terms of how it manages its resources within that sphere. So for legislation that seeks to manage the environmental impact of industrial activities in our oceans it is absolutely crucial that it be right and hopefully that it be right the first time round in order to save everybody a lot of heartache and actually to ensure productivity in this House is maintained at a higher level than this bill might suggest it is being.When it was introduced by the Minister for Land Information on behalf of the Minister for the Environment into the House it was stated that “This bill will ensure that when operators apply for a marine consent for their existing production activities they will be able to continue operating as they have done for the last 40 years until their marine consent application is decided on by the Environmental Protection Authority.” That was the aim and the purpose. I want to go one step further. The thing that I found interesting is that as the Minister for Land Information said in her first reading speech the Government would have preferred that Shell Todd Oil Services had applied in sufficient time so that this bill was not needed. That is a really interesting statement because although I myself and New Zealand First were a little critical of Shell Todd Oil Services for not actually getting its application in early it also became clear to me as we made our way through the legislation and through select committee deliberation that it was not entirely the fault of Shell Todd Oil Services. The problem was actually injected into the original legislation either by the oversight or incompetence of the Minister Nick Smith.I applaud the Government members of the committee for the way in which they diligently go about their work. I specifically want to acknowledge and applaud their ability to listen to argue to discuss and to amend a bill where they too accept that there is a sensible change that can be made for the benefit of the oil exploration companies. And I do think that I will also applaud their level of loyalty to a Minister who consistently and persistently seems to charge out of the blocks waving his flag and telling the nation that he is doing good work for it only to trip stumble fall and break his nose at the taxpayers’ expense—and we end up back in the House redressing. I have to say that when I look at this legislation I cannot help but be mindful of the debacle in Auckland with the housing issue: the same Minister again. And then I think back to my time as the Mayor of Carterton and seeing the absolutely appalling way that same Minister handled legislation in the local government amendment bill that went through a couple of years ago.It was the same act: wave it around we are doing the country a favour this is going to be environmentally good for the country this is going to help the oil exploration companies get on with their work protect the environment and protect the resources. OK—then bang it falls over and here we are back in the House. I just wonder loyalty aside on the back of this little debacle how long we will have to endure until we see someone like Scott Simpson move up the ranks and take Nick Smith’s job and allow him to quietly with dignity move off into the ether and into retirement because this actually is another one of his errors and his flaws.I have spoken about the amendment so I will not dwell on that further. I just want to thank the Government members for listening to the debate and for also coming to the conclusion that not only is this good for the Government it is actually good for the industry itself—giving it that extra time. I go back to the departmental report where it was actually recommending 6 months right from the get-go and yet the committee agreed unanimously that 9 months would be better for all in terms of that amendment in clause 4 to section 162 of the principal Act.The submitters were interesting. It is interesting that I think we actually had only one submission in favour of the legislation which naturally came from the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand. We had two groups opposed to the legislation Frack Free Kapiti and Oil Free Otago along with Miss Linda Hill. We had one from Tanea Tangaroa who although she expressed her outrage on behalf of her people her hapū as to the way in which oil exploration is handled in general within New Zealand waters and particularly within their rohe did not actually make it clear and go so far as to oppose the legislation. Well she certainly did not say those words in her submission.But the concerns against were interesting and I think most of them were within the range or the sphere of Green Party thinking. They were concerned about giving existing operators legal privilege. Oil Free Otago opposed for a range of reasons all environmental. Miss Linda Hill again opposed for environmental reasons. But it is interesting that at the end of the day even with Tanea Tangaroa who had a lot of cultural concerns and expressed those on behalf of her whanaunga and her hapū here we sat at the end of the day with a committee that had a number of us from across party lines all of Māori descent looking at it and deciding that this legislation in its amended form should go forward. All of us agreed at the end of the day despite the concerns raised by people opposed to it on environmental grounds. The Green Party also came in behind and are now supporting the legislation.I myself had to take a step back because I was strongly critical of Shell Todd Oil Services at the outset because I think it could have got its act together. But I do accept now that it is not entirely its fault. If the original piece of legislation had been a little tighter and more comprehensive and had been given a little more thought this piece of legislation would not have been necessary. In summary good work by the select committee: good amendments. It is a very small piece of legislation but a very important piece of legislation in terms of how we protect yet take economic advantage from our oceans. I will just put on the record that New Zealand First supports this third reading and the passage of this bill and welcomes the fact that all other parties despite their initial views and concerns particularly environmental have likewise come to the same conclusion. Thank you.