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: 21 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4592. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 We are returning to Part 1A of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. When we left this during our last exciting instalment we were looking particularly on this side of the Chamber at some elements of the Minister for the Environment’s substantial Supplementary Order Paper 100. In particular some questions had been asked of the Minister around both the impact of new clause 17A and also the meaning of the replaced clause 17(3). 
On the latter the Minister I think the last time we were debating this was acknowledging that there was no intent to create a situation of a continuous loop of an application where an application if it were incomplete would be returned and the person would then be able to put in a new application and that would then start the process again. The concern we had is that we did not think clause 42 of the bill which is covered by new clause 17(3) was sufficiently clear to allow people to be able to understand the way in which the process would work for incomplete applications. So I think the Minister at that time was going to go and get some advice on whether or not a further Supplementary Order Paper was required to give that clarity about what happens with an incomplete application. 
Clause 42 of the bill talks about the Environmental Protection Authority returning an incomplete application if it decides that it “does not include an impact assessment that complies with section 40” and says that “The EPA must return an incomplete application and give the applicant a written explanation for its finding that the application is incomplete within 10 working days after the application is received by the EPA.” Under new clause 17(3) that incomplete application then becomes a new application if it is resubmitted. So we were seeking some clarity from the Minister around whether or not there need to be further changes made to ensure that there is an understanding that this is not a process that could simply go on and on ad infinitum with incomplete applications being returned and new applications being put in. We would appreciate some clarity from the Minister on new clause 17(3). 
The other matter is around new clause 17A which essentially says that planned petroleum activities can commence and continue under this law. My colleague Moana Mackey raised a concern about the Petrobras application off the East Coast of New Zealand where it has had approval for seismic activity. Would this clause mean that it could move to drilling without having to go through under the new rules? We have not yet had a response from the Minister to indicate whether or not that is in fact the impact of new clause 17A. Obviously it is a concern for us. We are not talking just about existing activities here; this is about planned activities. We on this side of the Chamber want to ensure that we understand what this clause means. It would provide to us significant concern if indeed a planned activity meant in the case of Petrobras that just because it got the approval around seismic work it has a continuing approval for drilling rather than it having to go back to the new processes that are established under this bill. 
They are the two concerns that we have got around Part 1A. I hope the Minister is going to be able to respond to us and to indicate whether or not she is looking at some amendment to clause 17(3) and to clarify the meaning of clause 17A because a planned activity is quite a different thing from an existing activity. Certainly people on the East Coast of New Zealand have had significant concerns about what Petrobras has been doing. They would be very alarmed to learn that just because it had approval for seismic surveys and seismic testing it would then be able under this clause to go on and move to drilling. That kind of loophole is something that we on this side of the Chamber are very concerned to make sure we are not putting in. 
We expressed our concern at having this Supplementary Order Paper put forward at short notice. Hopefully the Minister has had time in the interim period to answer some of our questions. I look forward to the Minister taking a call and answering those two questions.