GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) : I seek leave that we report progress on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, in order for the bill and its accompanying Supplementary Order Papers to be referred back to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): You can seek leave that we report progress. I am not sure whether the additional instruction or the reason is in order. So all the member does is just—

GRANT ROBERTSON: I seek leave that we report progress on this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought to report progress. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : The Labour Party would very much like to see this bill return to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The reason we would like that to happen, in large part, relates to Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams. This Supplementary Order Paper runs to some nine or so pages of amendments—actually, it is longer than that; some 13 or 14 pages of amendments—that have been put forward in the name of the Minister. Many of these amendments are significant. They make substantive change to the bill. They are not issues that were dealt with in detail by the select committee. We are concerned on this side of the Chamber that the amendments will create loopholes in the law that will be exploited by people who want to undertake activity in the exclusive economic zone. There are some areas where we are simply not sure what the effect will be, and we need the opportunity, as a Parliament, for officials to take the time to go back and look at these changes and give advice to this Parliament as to whether or not these changes will have the kinds of impacts that we believe they will have.

We will of course now ask questions of the Minister for the Environment about these changes as we go through, but that is clearly not the best way to be able to ensure that this Parliament is passing legislation that we believe will be robust. Dropping on the Committee, in the way the Minister has, substantive changes like, for instance, changes to time limits for hearings, changes to the way in which existing petroleum activities become discretionary, and questions around when mineral prospecting and exploration may continue and commence for planned activities are significant issues and significant changes from what has previously been put before this House. I think it is a shame that the Government is not prepared to take the time to get this right.

Everybody in this Chamber acknowledges the importance of creating a robust regime around our exclusive economic zone and the activities that take place within that area. On the first reading of this bill the Labour Party opposed this legislation, because we believed that it was inadequate in terms of providing that robust regime. We believe now, after the second reading, the select committee’s amendments, and, indeed, the Minister’s amendments, that it is still inadequate in terms of providing that regime and, what is more, it is now likely to increase uncertainty around activity in the zone. The Government would have an opportunity to provide that clarity if it did, at least, refer this bill back.

In the first of my contributions on Part 1, I want to make clear that we are appreciative of the fact that the Minister for the Environment has made some changes to the purpose clause of this bill, clause 10. There was a significant amount of feedback and submissions from not just Opposition parties but also a range of environmental groups, which said that the purpose clause as put forward by the Minister initially was not a sufficiently robust overall framework in which this bill would be looked at. The clause tried to create a balance between economic development and the environment, and, as many submitters said, it is not a matter of balance in this case.

Now the Minister has returned to us with a clause around sustainable management that is drawn from the Resource Management Act. That is a step in the right direction.

Louise Upston: Are you debating the right part?

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is good, but it is not part of what we would see as being the full, right, and correct answer. I am indeed on Part 1. Clause 10—for the benefit of the junior whip on the Government side—has the purpose statement in it. The purpose statement is now one that reflects the Resource Management Act, but it does not reflect the international obligations that New Zealand has. We need to go further than the Resource Management Act when it comes to our exclusive economic zone.

The reason for that is that our ability to make law in the exclusive economic zone arises from our ratification of, and our being a signatory to, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is absolutely clear in article 192, which provides that “States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.” That is what is called a general obligation. It stands alone as article 192 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has noted, it is an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. Economic activity is allowable, but protection and preservation of the marine environment is essential and required. That is why article 192 provides for that.

Article 193 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does allow for the exploitation by States of their natural resources “pursuant to their environmental policies and in accordance with their duty to protect and preserve the marine environment.” The purpose clause of the exclusive economic zone bill must show to all those who are interested in activity in the exclusive economic zone that the protection and the preservation of the marine environment is the baseline understanding of how that activity will happen. At the moment, despite the Minister’s moving the purpose clause to a better place than it was, we do not see the language of protection and preservation appearing in clause 10.

There was a lot of talk during the select committee about making this bill consistent with the Resource Management Act, and that was an important consideration. It goes beyond that, because the Resource Management Act covers what happens out to 12 miles and we want to ensure consistency. But the issues that impinge upon the area between 12 miles and 200 miles are larger than that and require a recognition of the protection and preservation of the marine environment. If the Minister wanted to take on that notion, it would be possible to at least go an even further step towards getting us in line with our international obligations by providing to decision makers under the Act the matters they would need to take into account, just as the Resource Management Act does in section 6 of that Act. It is all very well putting in section 5 of the Resource Management Act as the purpose clause, but in the absence of giving an indication to decision makers about what are the matters of importance that are needed, this clause falls short of providing New Zealanders with the assurance that they have a bill and a law that will protect and preserve the marine environment.

Most of the organisations that submitted on this bill have said they accept that there will be economic activity within our exclusive economic zone, but New Zealanders who are looking at that and looking back to events in the Gulf of Mexico and who are concerned about the isolation of New Zealand want to know that lawmakers understand the importance of creating a regime that is robust and based around those core principles of protection and preservation of the marine environment. That is absent from clause 10, it is absent from any other part of this part of the bill, and that makes it very difficult for Opposition parties, particularly—and I can speak only on behalf of the Labour Party—to be able to support a bill like this. It is made far worse by having other matters included in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper.

So there are Supplementary Order Papers on the Table, both from Labour Party members and from the Green Party as well, that are asking the Minister to relook at clause 10 of this bill and to give this bill a purpose that allows New Zealanders to say that we know our marine environment will be protected and preserved, and to say to the rest of the world that we are taking our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea seriously. We urge the Minister to look at the Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table that would amend clause 10. It is indeed welcome that the Government has listened to submitters about consistency with the Resource Management Act, but although that is good, it is not good enough.

In the few moments remaining in my first call around this part I also want to note that there are a number of other issues that have not been dealt with in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper that we believe should be dealt with, particularly around questions on the way in which the Treaty of Waitangi is represented. There are also Supplementary Order Papers on that. We have Supplementary Order Paper 104 from Annette King, which seeks to extend those clauses that relate to the Treaty of Waitangi to Moriori. That was an issue that was raised in the select committee. We believe it is important that it is noted here when we come to this particular part of the bill.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) : I do want to take an early call on this first part of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, recognising that one of the key issues that will be considered by the House in Committee this afternoon is around the purpose clause and the changes that the Government is recommending in Supplementary Order Paper 100 in my name, and just to take the opportunity to address some of the matters raised by Mr Robertson in his contribution.

Just leading into that, can I make the statement first off, by way of introductory comments in my first contribution this afternoon, that this is a bill that everybody—certainly as far as I have heard, and all the major players—recognise is long overdue, is much needed, and is an important piece of legislation to fill a gap in our framework that has been in place for some years and that the previous Government did not see fit to do anything about in its time in the House. We have come in and recognised that this is important legislation that fills a gap in the framework and it does need to be passed. My concern is about the continual steps made by the Opposition to defer the passage of this bill rather than actually have to make a call on it and form a coherent view. That is pretty consistent with its current position, which is a reluctance to take a stand and an inability to address the clear divisions in its own caucus about whether or not it supports mining, and whether or not it supports any activity in this space. Rather than form a coherent position, rather than vote for a bill that it may want to vote for politically, or vote against a bill that it knows it cannot justify, its option is just to play for touch and try to come up with some procedural reason to see yet more delay come into this and more time without this environmental protection, which everyone agrees is necessary, in place.

In that respect it is interesting to see that after the announcement of my Supplementary Order Paper we have had the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment come out in strong support of the passage of this legislation, saying she is happy with the form of the legislation, and she has called for it to be passed into law. She has called for it to be passed into law: the law is needed, she thinks it is in a good position, and she has called for it to be passed. I think that speaks volumes, and the fact that the Labour Opposition is still unwilling to support it, still unwilling to see this legislation put in place, speaks more about the position it is in. At least the Green Party knows what it is opposed to. We do not have any surprise at the fact that the Green Party is opposed, but at least it is prepared to take a stance rather than to simply political point-score and try to kick for touch.

I want to comment on the changes to the purpose clause, which is in this part of the bill, and on Supplementary Order Paper 100, which is in my name and which seeks to change it. We have decided that it makes better sense to have a purpose clause incorporating the principle of sustainable management. I have talked in public and made comments around the reasons we have done that, and I want to repeat that here and now for the sake of the Committee. The changes are reflecting the fact that we do see considerable benefit for all stakeholders in having a regime of sustainable management that is well defined in case law, that parties do understand, and that, importantly, provides a consistency of approach between matters within the 12-mile limit and those outside that limit, between the 12 and 200-mile limit. We can certainly see benefit in applications that will have impact on both sides of that 12-mile limit by having some consistency of approach.

In that respect, I want to comment on, and respond to, Mr Robertson’s allegations that although we have adopted what is a cousin of section 5 of the Resource Management Act, there is in this legislation no equivalent of section 6 of the Resource Management Act, which guides decision makers in carrying out their functions. In fact, Mr Robertson is quite wrong. I direct him to clause 59 of the bill, which does exactly that. Although that is not in this part, I address it here because of the comments and concerns of Mr Robertson about the lack of an equivalent of section 6 of the Resource Management Act. Clause 59 of this bill does exactly that. It lists the principles that decision makers are to take into account and have regard to when they are making decisions in respect of this bill. In that way, it absolutely mirrors the purpose of section 6 of the Resource Management Act in terms of its provision of information to decision makers for them to take into account.

The other comment that I wanted to make in this early contribution is simply to reiterate once again that there are clear statements that the bill is compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and our obligations under it. Opposition members insist on trying to take a clause by clause look or a part by part look at those obligations. They are holistic obligations. They must be given effect to as a whole. They specifically enable sovereign States to make arrangements for using the economic resources in that zone in a balancing provision. That is exactly what this bill does, and that is why it has been cleared as compliant with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and our other international obligations. So to continue with the line that suggests that it is not compliant is simply not correct, and it is not borne out by the information from our foreign agencies that are in charge of monitoring our obligations under those international conventions.

The bill is an absolutely essential piece of environmental legislation. It is long overdue. The National-led Government is committing to getting it passed. We would call on other parties in this Chamber that genuinely do want to see an increase of protection in the exclusive economic zone to work with us to see it brought into law. We thank those parties that have given support. We look forward to hearing the rest of the debate this afternoon.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I also would like to put on record how disappointed I am that the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill was not referred back to the Local Government and Environment Committee so that Supplementary Order Paper 100 could be fully considered, because it is significant and it does make significant changes. It is not the positive step that the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, is claiming it is. In fact, when we went through the Supplementary Order Paper clause by clause, what was very clear was that the Supplementary Order Paper actually takes the bill backwards considerably. The bill should go back to the select committee.

I want to address some of the Minister’s comments on the purpose clause of the bill, because it does not meet the test of our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We open ourselves up to a very real risk of legal challenges, which will, of course, be funded by the New Zealand taxpayer, in terms of their defence, if we do not get this right. There is a very simple way we could have got it right: put the wording of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea into the purpose clause of the bill. That is what other countries have done. If we use the term “preserve and protect the marine environment” in the purpose clause of the bill, then it removes any uncertainty that we are not consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. And if we have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which we have, then why would we oppose using the same language as the convention? It does not make sense.

If we agree with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which we must do, because we ratified it, then using the language of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea should not be something the Government opposes, unless, of course, it thinks that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is far too restrictive and might stop some of the oil and gas exploration that it has planned from going ahead, which is the only plan the Government has for the economy.

The Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, is a lawyer. She knows that this could have removed an awful lot of legal uncertainty. Instead, she has decided that she is just going to wing it and take the risk. I want to read to the Minister Part 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. There is a suite of provisions there. The Minister is very fond of saying that there are a whole lot of things under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that they all have to be taken into context. Well, article 192 says: “States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.” That is not qualified in any way. Nowhere does it say “unless this” or “unless that”. Nowhere is there a provision that overrides that. It says we have an obligation—an obligation—to protect and preserve the marine environment. Article 193 provides that the right to exploit natural resources must—must—be in accordance with the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment. It could not be more clear.

So although the Minister has come up with a clause from the Resource Management Act that is better than the one that is in the bill, at the end of the day it still does not get us over the line. It does not matter, actually, how close we get to that line; if we are not over it, then we are in breach of our international obligations. We are in breach of those international obligations, and that is what the Labour Party has been concerned about from the first reading of this piece of legislation.

I do not know how the Minister can continue to claim that because she has aligned the purpose clause with the Resource Management Act, that somehow meets our international obligations. The Resource Management Act does not have to be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Minister. Just because it is consistent with the Resource Management Act does not make it consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Hon Amy Adams: It was, anyway.

MOANA MACKEY: Sorry?

Hon Amy Adams: It was, anyway.

MOANA MACKEY: It was not consistent. Instead of having this to-ing and fro-ing, why would we not provide absolute certainty and use the language of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? Why would we not use the language “preserve and protect the marine environment.”? Then we would not have to worry about it. We have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, so, obviously, we agree with that, so why would we not just use it, and then we do not even have to have this argument any more?

The reason we are not going to use it is that the Minister well knows—and as one of the energy companies told us when it came to the select committee—they like this because it is intended to be more permissive than the Resource Management Act. That is what the energy company told us, and that is the reason that the purpose clause is deliberately not consistent with our international conventions.

I want to talk about the changes to clause 11 in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. This is a clause around our international obligations. When the bill came back from the Local Government and Environment Committee we strengthened this clause significantly. We were clear. We said that this Act must be interpreted under various international conventions relating to the marine environment, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity. We thought that made it quite clear that everything in the bill was meant to be and intended to be consistent with our international obligations.

Well, this has now been changed. Clause 11, in Supplementary Order Paper 100, now reads: “This Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligation …”. In other words, we are not quite there yet—we are not quite there yet. We are continuing to implement our obligations, but we do not want to say that it does implement our obligations, because that would be a much tougher test, and it would be interpreted differently.

There is a piece in the explanatory note of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 that I think was particularly interesting as well. When she talked about clause 11, her explanation was: “… which provides for the Act to be interpreted under various international conventions, is replaced. New clause 11 records that the Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s international obligations”—and this is the interesting bit—“so that a decision-maker under the Act does not need to look beyond the Act to be sure that he or she is complying with those obligations.” Otherwise, the people who are implementing this piece of legislation can ignore the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, can ignore the convention on biodiversity, because the new clause 11 states that they do not have to give any regard to our international obligations. They merely need to give regard to this piece of legislation, which, as I said, no longer says that this Act must be interpreted in accordance with our international obligations. It simply says that it is continuing along the pathway of maybe one day getting somewhere close to implementing and meeting the tests under our various international obligations.

I find it astonishing that the Minister can continue to claim that this piece of legislation is in accordance with the international obligations, when it clearly is not. Although the concept of sustainable management is a good one, it is disappointing that throughout the rest of the bill, where we would have liked to see more consistency with the Resource Management Act, the one part of the bill that is purposeful, where we were not calling for the same language as the Resource Management Act, is the one where she has actually done it. And then everywhere else in the bill, where we have said “Please use the language of the RMA.”, she has completely ignored it.

The purpose clause must be consistent with our international obligations, and it is not—it is not; it is quite clear that it is not. We have a right to exploit the resources in our exclusive economic zone, but that right comes with a duty and an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. That is not a balance—as the Government was talking about before. That is not the language that we have in there now. Where is the language that states that we understand, under this legislation, that there is an obligation, a duty, to protect and preserve the marine environment? If the National Government thinks that this piece of legislation does do that, then why would they leave so much uncertainty? Why would they not just put that language in the legislation, so that we can be in no doubt that the purpose of this legislation is to protect and preserve the marine environment? There is only one reason why you would not use that wording, and it is because you do not want—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

MOANA MACKEY: —sorry, Mr Chair—the Government does not want to protect and preserve the marine environment. That is the only reason—the only reason you would not do something so simple. It is because you do not want that to be the outcome of this piece of legislation—that is the only reason. It would be nice if one of the National members would be honest enough to actually say that in the course of this debate.

Yes, I agree with the Minister—we need legislation in place. But, at the same time, we do not need to be going out there and ramping up oil and gas exploration before this bill is passed. It is not a good enough argument to say: “Oh, because all this stuff is going ahead, we just need to pass any old piece of legislation.” Maybe we could pass good legislation, and then, once the protection is in place, go ahead with the oil and gas exploration. That would seem to be a sensible way of doing it, instead of putting the cart before the horse and allowing the gates to open. We are going to have some very interesting debates on the transitional provisions around this piece of legislation, which really have opened the gates to completely allowing exploration to go ahead, with no marine consent and no input. We look forward to that debate.

It is really disappointing that the Minister was not prepared to work with the members of the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the New Zealand First Party, who came to her and met with her, saying we need to find a compromise on the purpose clause and on this piece of legislation, because it is too important. Instead, the Minister dumped the Supplementary Order Paper at a meeting, with Grant Robertson sitting next to her and Eugenie Sage—they had no idea it was coming. She did not give us the courtesy of saying: “Look, I’ve taken on board what we’ve said in the meeting. I’m going to release an SOP. Here’s basically what it does.” This is too important to be a piece of legislation where the pendulum swings between Governments. We could have found a compromise. We were not that far away. It is a shame we did not do it at the select committee, but we were shut down at every point at the select committee when we tried to get these changes. It was clear that it was just going to be the Government’s way or no way at all.

Unfortunately, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, although I appreciate all the work she put into it, did not realise she had a tied vote on the committee, which involved a lot of cleaning up in the Supplementary Order Paper to clean up what happened to the bill because of the way it ended up having to be voted on, because the process was not clearly laid out beforehand. But we could have come to an agreement on the purpose clause that had the intention of preserving and protecting the marine environment. We could have got there, and it is a shame that the Government rejected that offer.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) : I am delighted to be here to support the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill in its Committee stage. I am delighted to support the bill, because up until now there has been absolutely no framework to manage the environmental effects of activities in the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf. That means no legislation to manage seabed mining, no legislation to manage the platforms for oil and gas exploration, and no legislation for drilling, marine farming, energy generation, or carbon capture and storage. As the marine area covered by this bill is 20 times the size of the land mass of New Zealand, this legislation is well overdue. I think it is really interesting listening to the Labour members say they are not going to support the bill, because between 1999 and 2008 under Labour there were 46 wells drilled, with no legislation to monitor the activities and no legislation to protect the environment.

I was really pleased to hear from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment this week, who welcomed the changes to this bill. She said she is satisfied that the legislation will provide environmental protections for our oceans. Obviously, Labour does not read the press releases. Obviously, Labour does not follow what the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says. She also congratulated the Government on bringing this legislation to Parliament, on listening to others, and on carrying on a conversation with environmentalists.

I would like to thank our Ministers. I would firstly like to thank our ex - Minister for the Environment the Hon Nick Smith for promoting this legislation, and our present Minister, the Hon Amy Adams, for getting this legislation through the House.

We are all aware, as New Zealanders, how our country is shaped by the oceans around it. We have one of the largest exclusive economic zones in the world. Most New Zealanders live close to it, and they want to protect our oceans. We enjoy our coastal oceans. And although we mostly know those beaches and the things near us and focus on those, we are also committed to looking after the wider oceans and the resources beyond, to the exclusive economic zone, which goes past the 12 nautical miles, up to 200 miles out to sea. The exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf are ours under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Because they are ours under this legislation, we have both rights and responsibilities. We have the right to manage and to use the resources in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, but we also have the responsibilities to protect and conserve the marine environment, and this is exactly what this legislation will enable.

The Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on this bill. We made a large number of changes. The issues we were most interested in in Part 1 were the purpose clause of the bill, and whether the bill met with our international obligations. The original purpose of the bill was based on the principle of balance—the balance between looking after the environment and managing our economy. But the Minister has since revised that purpose in her Supplementary Order Paper 100, and the purpose is now “to promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf.” Of course, this is in line with the Resource Management Act, which is the management tool that looks after that first 12 nautical miles of our coastal waters, so it makes sense to use that for the greater exclusive economic zone. It will create better consistency in environmental regulations for the different areas of the ocean, and will be particularly useful for any activities that span both the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone beyond 12 nautical miles.

These changes will also please many of our submitters, as they were concerned that as the bill attempted to balance the economy and the environment, the environment might miss out. That is not what we want. Also, the concept of sustainable management is well defined in domestic law, and it has been used for about 20 years in Resource Management Act case law, so people understand the terminology and will be able to use it freely. The new purpose will ensure that any economic activities in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf will be sustainable, and will be done in such a way as to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the environment.

I would like to take just a short call to talk about our international obligations. There was significant debate about whether the bill would meet our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and also some submitters felt that it was a bit restrictive to use only that legislation. They suggested, and we did actually take their suggestion, to add the Convention on Biological Diversity. We sought advice, and we were assured that the bill did meet our obligations under international law. But the Legislation Advisory Committee advised us not to allow our international obligations to become an interpretations tool, because that would risk the bill becoming subject to international obligations not considered by our Parliament. However, we did include the Convention on Biological Diversity. Under the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100, the text is amended. Both the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1992 and the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992 are included, and our commitment to both these obligations are clarified by saying that “This Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations … relating to the marine environment” under these conventions, and everybody—except, perhaps, Moana Mackey—feels that this fulfils our obligations and is the right piece of language for New Zealand.

I believe that the amendments made to the original bill improve it significantly, and I would like to thank all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work they did to improve the bill. I would like to thank the Green Party for its input, and also the Labour Party, because there were times that we got a better outcome because of that discussion.

Just before I go I would like to put an answer to Grant Robertson’s concerns. This bill is predicated on caution. Because of the size of the exclusive economic zone and the unknown quantities of our waters, and because new emerging technologies are involved, it seeks to favour caution and environmental protection. As a default position, all activities are discretionary, unless they are classified as permitted, so, until we have more knowledge, each activity will be considered with a case by case approach. I think that is appropriate, and I think that should put Mr Robertson’s fears to rest. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green) : Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I rise to take a call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill—the “Exclusive Economic Zone Drilling Bill”, as I call it. It is disappointing that we are having this debate now. I think that the Green Party and Labour Party were quite earnest in their desire to see this bill go back to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I do not think it was a matter of playing politics with this bill; it is just the scope of the amendments put forward by the Minister for the Environment on Supplementary Order Paper 100.

I have asked the Minister whether we could vote clause by clause, because, as I will explain in my call today, some of the amendments we support, and some we do not. We would like to be able to vote for the ones that we do support. But the Minister said that she would not support that because the Supplementary Order Paper is so long and there are so many clauses being amended. If it is so large, if there are so many clauses being amended, what is the harm of taking it back to the select committee to have more investigation and to actually get a robust, solid bill coming out of the committee?

What I think everyone in this House wants to see is a good bill come out of this House. No party in this Parliament wants to see the current legislative, regulatory vacuum that occurs in our exclusive economic zone. By means of introduction to the people listening on telly and in the gallery today, what this bill does is set up a regime for our exclusive economic zone between the 12 and 200 nautical miles. It is a place where there has not been a great deal of rules or a framework through which you can apply for consents.

The Green Party, since 1988—the earliest reference I can find—when we first entered Parliament, has been calling for comprehensive oceans legislation, because there has been a huge gap. It is critical that this Parliament gets it right. A number of players, be they oil drillers or conservationists, want certainty. They want to know what the rules are. They want to know that the rules are not going to change, and that the carpet will not be pulled from beneath them. What everyone wants is a robust bill that gets turned into law that we can all agree on.

What we want is something like the Resource Management Act, which has been an enduring framework. It is important to get it right because, as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner, pointed out, we have a very large exclusive economic zone, the fifth-largest in the world. It is an amazing environment, where I think Kiwis take our sustenance from—our spiritual sustenance, and obviously our physical sustenance, with our kai moana. It is where we get our economic sustenance from. You know, our $20 billion “clean, green” brand, in part, comes from our ocean environment. It is where our tourism, our aquaculture, and our fisheries industries are thriving. The simple fact is that Kiwis love our environment.

Obviously people want to explore and exploit the environment, and that is why it is critical that we have this bill. So the Minister has come to Parliament with a huge number of amendments set out on her Supplementary Order Paper. I want to touch on this before going into a little detail on four of those points. The first thing is that we were earnest and up front with our desire to take this bill back to the select committee. I am hoping that the Minister will consider it. I understand that leave was sought, but the Committee is the master of its own destiny. The Committee might wish to consider putting that motion again. After all, what we want to see is a good law.

We think that the process around those amendments was less than desirable. The Opposition parties went to the Minister off our own bats to try to negotiate in good faith. We had a good meeting, and it is unfortunate that these amendments were literally sort of slammed on the Table or uploaded to the website with no notice. The Minister used what I call the Olympic strategy, because what we have seen is a number of quite significant announcements over the course of the Olympics, from Māui’s dolphins, to sea lions, to the seismic regulations. What the Government has done is announce a raft of top-level changes with its amendments, but it did not actually alert the public or Parliament to the rest of the amendments. It is not just the five amendments that were highlighted in the press release. We are talking about pages and pages of various amendments.

So while the Government was trying to spin the amendments as trying to strengthen the bill from an environmental perspective, I chuckled at the headline in the National Business Review that said the Government was buckling to Green pressure. What we know, I think, is that it is simply spin. It is simply spin from this Government. There are some amendments we can agree with, and a whole host that we do not, but ultimately we are not seeing a better bill coming out. We are not seeing a more robust, enduring solution for this vexed problem, which has faced numerous Parliaments.

The first significant amendment is to clause 10, the purpose clause. We endorse the change we have seen here, which is in the language “sustainable management”, but we think we should have gone a bit further. We take our hats off to the Minister because she got rid of that flawed “balanced” ideology, as I put it. What I think the Government is talking about when it talks about balance, is that you can trade off a little bit of environmental degradation for a little bit of profit. The flip side of that is that you can trade off a whole host of environmental degradation if there is a profit in it.

What we know about New Zealand is that in our oil industry we have got the fourth-lowest Government royalty and tax rates, for what we are getting. It is not the Kiwi economy that is benefiting, on the whole; it is those foreign-owned companies, meaning that New Zealand is facing 100 percent of the environmental risk for the fourth-lowest royalty plus tax rate in the world. It also means that there are numerous tax exemptions, that there are hardly any jobs for Kiwis, and that the profits are going offshore. We reject what we consider the flawed ideology around “balance”. We take our hats off to the Minister, in that she has removed it. But she has gone only halfway, because we have got those critical words “sustainable management” in clause 10, the purpose clause, but what we do not have is the rest of it.

The Government, I think, has been a bit confused about how close or distant it wants to get to the Resource Management Act. Some days Government members talk about it as if they do not want anything in the exclusive economic zone bill to be related to it, and then on other days they want it to be strengthened to be more like the Resource Management Act. This comes with a whole host of problems, because in the area inside 12 nautical miles, one regime applies, with one set of rules, and in the area beyond 12 nautical miles, another regime applies, with a different set of rules.

The Minister has gone part of the way with the changing of the purpose clause to include “sustainable management”. What we do not have are the other key words from the Resource Management Act. The current amendment that the Minister is proposing uses the words “take into account” in respect of certain matters. The key words from the Resource Management Act, of course, are to “recognise and provide for”. What we are going to see is the courts essentially deciding this, and I think the courts are going to have a significant power.

I want to touch on the international negotiations, because what we are seeing here is a deliberate weakening of clause 11, “International obligations”. The committee, which all parties supported, wanted to have the word “consistent” in there. I think that we should have gone stronger and said: “This bill will be interpreted consistently with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS”. This is critical, because this is how we get the right—the responsibility—to use and enjoy our exclusive economic zone. It is clear that we have international obligations.

The Minister is emphatic that the current legislation—the bill in front of us and her amendments—is consistent, but has the Minister got an updated legal opinion on the changes? What we are seeing is clause 11, “International obligations”, actually changing, and we are seeing the purpose clause and a whole host of other changes. So if the Minister could table that new legal opinion, I think that would be beneficial to the Committee.

The fact is that many commentators, from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, to legal experts, to the Opposition parties do not think the legislation will be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I think it is clear that we should be aiming to do this. I think the Government is scared of being taken to court, essentially, over the interpretation. You know, if you think it is consistent with the convention, you should say so. We should say: “This Act will be interpreted consistently with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

The Minister also touched on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s support. Obviously the commissioner has come out in support, but I think the Minister is taking it a bit far and may be putting words in the commissioner’s mouth when she gushes over the support for this bill. I think the commissioner, like the Green Party, wants to see something out there in the exclusive economic zone, because we have not had anything. But the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment quite rightly says she has a number of concerns with the bill. The key question is that this still is not the overarching oceans framework that her office and numerous other commentators have been calling for. Where is the conservation side? Where is the spatial planning side? What we are talking about is a consenting regime. We are not talking about a management regime, and this is what we need because we have got a gigantic ocean space, yet we know so little about it.

I looked into the research done by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research over the decades. We still know so little about the marine environment—what is down there in the benthic and the atrophic environments. We know so little about it, yet we are about to go and exploit it. I understand that soon we are expecting a consent to be lodged for ironsand mining, which could involve 300 million tonnes of sand being moved off the west coast of the North Island. We are talking about Chatham Rock Phosphate’s proposal to dig up, I understand, 3,000 square kilometres over the lifetime of the resource on the ocean floor.

These are huge questions, and with no information we think we should actively be managing our marine environment, but this is not what we see. What we are seeing is an increasing strengthening in a few respects, but on the whole we are seeing a bill that is still fundamentally flawed—in fact, being taken backwards. I will be debating this in the debate on later parts, because this is where the transition measures and the penalties come from. But, basically, what we are seeing is a missed opportunity from this Parliament, a missed opportunity from this Government, and a missed opportunity from this Minister, who could have engaged a lot better.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. The member who just resumed his seat, Gareth Hughes, referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I think it is probably worth having a look at the full press release made by Dr Jan Wright, who has “welcomed the changes to the Exclusive Economic Zone Bill made by the Government. The Bill is intended to regulate activities in the EEZ including deepwater oil exploration and iron sand prospecting. Dr Wright says she is satisfied that the legislation will provide significant protection to New Zealand’s EEZ.” So that comes directly from the website of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. It is one of two press releases that the parliamentary commissioner put out very recently, acknowledging the good work of the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Amy Adams, in recognising that through the select committee process, some improvements can, and should, be made to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. You know, hats off to Amy Adams. She has listened and she has made some very constructive changes.

I also want to pick up on the point made by one of the Labour members who bemoaned the fact that Supplementary Order Paper 100 was something like 14 pages long and contained an awful lot of material. I would just like—

Grant Robertson: It was me.

JACQUI DEAN: Well, if you have a read of the Supplementary Order Paper, you will recognise that there are really three substantive—

Moana Mackey: You haven’t read it.

JACQUI DEAN: Look at the creases in the paper, see—look at the creases in the paper. If those members had—like I and my colleagues—looked at that Supplementary Order Paper, they would have recognised that there are three key changes.

The first amends the purpose of the bill to incorporate the concept of sustainable management, which is similar to the Resource Management Act. I am going to pick up on that theme, maybe later in this speech or in other contributions. It also increases the maximum penalties for companies, from $600,000 through to $10 million. This, again, was another hotly discussed issue within the Local Government and Environment Committee. It clarifies that the transitional period will enable planned activities to proceed during the 2013-14 season, and also provides a statutory time frame of about 6 months for marine consent processes. Many of the other issues noted in the Supplementary Order Paper are tidying up and formatting issues associated with the bill.

I just want to pick up on the first point I made about sustainable management, and I just want to read from the bill’s commentary: “Labour would also like to see more consistency between [the exclusive economic zone] regime and the RMA. … Labour believes that better alignment of the two regimes would provide more certainty for industry and local government, as well as reassurance for the general public regarding the protection of the marine environment. The concept”—and I think this is the interesting part—“of ‘sustainable economic development’ is well understood under the RMA, and should be carried through into this regime.” That is really interesting. It gives a tick, I think, as my colleague says, for the concept of sustainable economic development.

So when I pick up the Supplementary Order Paper and have a look at the amendment to clause 10, it says: “Purpose—(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf.” So from that I am assuming that, having read Labour’s minority report in the bill, which is calling for the concept of sustainable economic development, and then picking up the Supplementary Order Paper, which in the amendment to clause 10 talks about sustainable management, I would have thought that Grant Robertson might be well pleased.

So why is it that Grant Robertson and Moana Mackey want to send this back into the wilderness and not actually take a stand and make a call on this legislation? Do you know why? It is because they do not want any regulation in the exclusive economic zone. They want to continue the legacy of their 9 years, while they were in Government, when there was a regulatory gap, which they were happy with, regarding deep-sea drilling, in their tenure of Parliament. If they were so happy—[Bell rung] Just to finish off that point, it seems that Labour members want the concept of sustainable economic development. It has been picked up in the Supplementary Order Paper. They are still not happy. Why are they not happy? They would prefer to have a regulatory vacuum rather than some good legislation.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I just want, first of all, to congratulate the Minister for the Environment. I think some fair points have been made in the debate, and I think there is general agreement that her proposed clause 10 in Supplementary Order Paper 100 is better than where we started. I think it is important to concede that right up front. Labour voted against the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill at the first reading for the particular reason that, specifically, as we said in the first reading debate, we had real concerns about the purpose clause. It was absolutely inadequate for the sort of exercise that this bill is designed to deal with. So the Minister has gone some way to try to remedy that, and I want to express, and put on record, appreciation for that, as have previous speakers in the debate. I understand that that will not have been an easy exercise, because, as was said in the first reading debate, the problem with this bill is it is too much of a developers’ charter and not enough of a bill that has regard to the preciousness of our environment.

I just want, in that regard, to say a few words about the importance of a purpose clause. Other speakers have noted that there is likely to be litigation around this legislation. Of course there will be. It involves natural resources, it involves important economic considerations, and it will involve powerful economic actors. They will have recourse to the courts for the interpretation and declaration of their rights, so it is important that we start right up front with a very clear purpose clause to guide the courts as to the interpretation of the rest of the Act.

We have already seen with the Environmental Protection Authority Act the sort of problem that Labour still has with this bill. In that particular piece of legislation there was a failure on the part of the Minister’s predecessor to expressly provide in the purpose clause that the purpose of the Environmental Protection Authority should actually be to protect the environment. The major defect of that bill—that Act, as it now is—continues to be that there is no express requirement that its sections be interpreted with that prime obligation in mind.

I think we need to think quite carefully about what we are doing here as a Committee, because the public are entitled, I think, to look at legislation and to expect its contents to at least bear some relationship to its title. Well, clearly, in the case of the Environmental Protection Authority Act, that is a case where this Parliament, under this Government, failed. I do not want to see Parliament fail again to do that in respect of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill.

The reason that I say we still are failing—notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has, I accept, gone some way to try to take into account Opposition concerns—is the issue that was raised by previous speakers, which is the problem of inconsistency with our international obligations. You know, we can pretend as much as we like in this Committee that we have been advised that it is consistent. We can say that black and blue, but any reading of the treaty and then any reading of the clauses that are now reproduced in the proposed purpose clause show that there is still a major inconsistency. The Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, shakes her head. I hope she gets up and addresses this point, and I hope that when she does so she actually has a copy of the treaty provisions in front of her, because the basic problem we still have here is the failure to incorporate in the legislation and in the purpose clause the fundamental part of the treaty obligation, which is about preserving and protecting the marine environment. It is not about promoting the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. It is about preserving and protecting.

I have to ask the Minister, because I know that she was a respected lawyer in practice, why on earth we would set up this dichotomy for the courts so that they have the treaty provision on one hand and the purpose clause on the other being inconsistent. What is to guide the courts when they consider the principles that they ought to observe in considering any ambiguity in the rest of the text of the Act? The Minister knows that that is going to be a problem going forward with the text that she has proposed.

That is why Grant Robertson has put forward his preferred version of clause 10 in Supplementary Order Paper 97. There is a very careful attempt here to legislate consistently with New Zealand’s international obligations. What he has done in subclause (1) is to very clearly say: “The purpose of the Act is to protect and preserve the environment while providing for sustainable economic development in the exclusive economic zone …”. Why on earth would we not do that? Why on earth would we not take the primary treaty provision and accept in the primary purpose clause in the legislation that it ought to be given prominence, and then say what else wants to be done? As I said, I am expressing gratitude to the Minister for having come some way, but I just cannot see, on the face of the competing Supplementary Order Papers, why on a logical comparison we would not prefer the approach that is contended for by Grant Robertson.

The second issue around general interpretation relates to the Minister’s suggestion for new clause 11 in Supplementary Order Paper 100. We heard a, frankly, extraordinary contribution from the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee earlier where I think what she said—what she seemed to think the officials had advised her—was that if Parliament inserted references to the treaties, then the courts would not be able to consider the clauses of those treaties; they would be able consider only the terms of the bill. I think that is what she said. We all had a little giggle, including the Minister in the chair, because clearly that is entirely wrong.

But actually looking at what is intended in the proposed new clause 11, first of all, the good thing is that, yes, there ought to be reference to the implementation of our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and I welcome the inclusion also of a reference to the Convention on Biological Diversity. That was a good move, a good suggestion from the committee, and it is great to see the Minister taking it up. But what does this mean: “This Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations …”? I mean, which is it? When the court looks at this provision, if—God forbid—it is actually enacted, then what is the court to make of it? “Oh, goodness me, I wonder whether this provision is intended to continue an obligation to which we have already accepted an international obligation, or are we now enabling that obligation?”. Surely, if we have signed the treaty, we accept that we are a party to it, and it is not a question of enabling or continuing, but actually being clear in the text of the statute which one it is. I really hope that the Minister will clarify that point for the Committee. I see she has just asked one of the officials a question; I hope it is about that.

The final point that I just wanted to make in this call relates to a clause in Part 1A that will be influenced by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. That is the insertion of clause 17A. This deals with planned petroleum activities, and essentially declares that they can continue. The problem here is that planned petroleum activities are very different from actual ongoing activities. I think we do have to hear from the Minister as to why this particular means for transition is the one that she thinks the Committee ought to adopt, because it does not actually seem either consistent with principle or consistent with the protection obligations that we all know New Zealand is party to.

Just a word about process. Again, without detracting from my earlier comments praising the Minister for being willing to come some way from the extremism that we saw from Dr Smith in the original draft of this bill, which was simply a developers’ charter for the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, we do have a process issue that cannot be ignored. We have a select committee system in our Parliament, for good reason. I have sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I sat on it this morning for an hour or two, and it is a good committee. It does its level best to make legislation before it better, but to drop a 16-page Supplementary Order Paper at the stage of the Committee of the whole House, in respect of legislation that is as important as this, is simply not good procedure. I think the Minister should refer it back to the select committee.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) : I do want to take a call, just to respond to a couple of the issues that have been raised by a number of speakers around clause 11 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and the international obligations. I will certainly come to that.

Let me just start, though, by pointing out to the last speaker, Charles Chauvel, in respect of his concerns around clause 17, that clause 17 is not in Part 1 of the bill. It sits in Part 1A, which we will be debating next. So I am more than happy for him to return and make a contribution on that part, and we can address that there.

Regarding clause 11 of the bill and the wording of the international obligations, it is very valid that the Committee consider this carefully because it is an important part of the bill. But I want to get a few things on record. The first of those is that simply repeating in Opposition contributions to the debate that it is not consistent does not take us any further. What I have said repeatedly is that the advice that we have from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which is, after all, New Zealand’s agency that has the responsibility for understanding and monitoring our compliance with our international obligations, has repeatedly made it very clear, both to the Local Government and Environment Committee and to me, that the bill—actually before the changes, and certainly, again, with them—complies with our international obligations in all respects. The point that the Committee has to take into account, as I have said repeatedly, is that the matter has to be looked at holistically.

The issue is that part 12 of the convention itself, although an important part of the convention, must be read in the context of the rest of the convention, the majority of which addresses use of the oceans, including exploitation of living and non-living resources, marine research, and navigation. In relation to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the use of the oceans, particular note should be made of articles 56 and 77, which explicitly refer to a coastal State’s sovereign right to explore and exploit the natural resources in its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

The view goes on to express the fact that it is the obligation of States in the light of particular circumstances to attempt to strike an appropriate and reasonable balance between all of the interests. That is exactly what the very nature of this bill does. We had clear advice to the committee, and we have clear advice through me to this Committee from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s legal team, that that is what the bill does. We had a legal submission to the select committee, I understand, from Simpson Grierson that made the same point. So if the Opposition wants to continue to assert that the bill does not meet the obligations, then it should find a legally qualified person who is expert in this area to say so. Until then, the information that we have put on the table has to be taken, I think, at face value.

I want to also talk about the comments that have been made around the wording on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in respect of clause 11, which is—let me just flick to that page quickly—“continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations”. A number of members have raised concerns about that wording. I simply point out to those members that it is a very well-used expression in this Chamber, and exists already in this space in the Maritime Transport Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Marine Mammals Protection Act, amongst others. So we are not talking about some new way of doing things. This is an established way of reflecting New Zealand’s international obligations. I suggest that those members consider the framework that already exists in this House and the appropriateness of it.

I further want to make the point that, actually, the reason that concern was raised around the initial drafting of clause 11, and the reason we have not done what some members are suggesting, which is simply put the words automatically into this bill, actually comes in large part from the submission, or is certainly reflected in the view of the submission, of the Legislation Advisory Committee—which is, at the end of the day, the expert on legislation and presents from a very unbiased, objective, and highly respected view—that to do that would be entirely inappropriate. It made the point that it is not appropriate to build in these sorts of conventions and interpretation aids.

The purpose of these obligations, and the way to approach them, is to ensure that we set up frameworks in our own domestic legislation as stand-alone frameworks that in and of themselves give effect to our obligations. That is what this bill does. That is what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has confirmed it does. That is what the legal advice to the committee confirmed was the case. So I say to Opposition members again that rather than just saying and continually repeating that it is inconsistent, they should come up with someone who is prepared to say that and is an expert in these matters, because the experts we have talked to, who are in charge of this matter, repeatedly say that this is the appropriate way to handle it. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has said it, Simpson Grierson has said it, and the Legislation Advisory Committee has said it.

So I simply say to members that rather than continue to look for reasons to object to a bill that the members, clearly, simply do not want to pass, they should put some meat on the bones of their submissions. We have done that. We have made the point as to why we are doing it. We have provided the evidence to back that up. Members opposite need to do the same, rather than come up with more and more spurious reasons to simply not want to back this legislation. If they do not want to back the legislation, Labour members should simply say that. Do not try to come up with unjustified obligations.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green) : The Green Party also believes that this Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill should be referred back to the Local Government and Environment Committee because this 16-page Supplementary Order Paper includes quite sweeping changes. It includes inspection powers from the Search and Surveillance Act and changes to the Biosecurity Act in relation to the eradication of unwanted organisms, and to the whole consenting regime for existing petroleum mining activities, which are licensed under the Continental Shelf Act.

It is good lawmaking when the select committee has an opportunity to consider changes of this scope in more detail, because we, like other members of the Opposition, want this bill to be robust law, we want it to be enduring, but the way in which the process has occurred, the fact that we have tried constructively to make amendments through giving the Minister for the Environment a number of Supplementary Order Papers last month, only to have Supplementary Order Paper 100 dropped on us last Friday, is not good lawmaking—putting these quite major changes that are in this Supplementary Order Paper in the legislation without it going back to select committee and without the select committee having had the benefit of seeing how the package as a whole works.

Certainly this legislation is overdue. We do need to fill this major gap in our environmental management regime. The fact is that we do not have a consenting regime to regulate activities in the exclusive economic zone and in the extended continental shelf, when this is the fifth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world, so we certainly support the need for the legislation, but it still has a number of flaws. The Minister, with her announcement in the Supplementary Order Paper that we were getting rid of the balanced criteria that were in the last purpose clause and the proposed referral to the sustainable management provisions of the Resource Management Act, has created the impression that there has been a move away from the pro-development bias of the bill as introduced. It certainly is more consistent with the Resource Management Act and it is certainly desirable to have that consistency of purpose between what is inside the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea and what is outside it. But I think there are a number of fish hooks and the bill is not as consistent with the Resource Management Act as the Minister and others on the Government side have implied.

There is a fundamental difference between this bill and the Resource Management Act, and that is that in the Resource Management Act there is a hierarchy of matters to be taken into account when decisions are made. There are matters of national importance that decision makers have to recognise and provide for, whereas under the bill the matters that the decision makers take into account are all to be given equal weight with no emphasis on environmental protection and sustainability. So the priorities then conflict and there is no guidance for decision makers about the relative weight to be given to each of the matters. That will mean that there is much more likely to be a focus on short-term economic considerations because the financial benefits are so much easier to quantify than damage to a species or damage to a habitat. So it is this lack of a hierarchy to guide decision makers that is the critical difference between the bill and the Resource Management Act, and the fact that there are no environmental bottom lines as there are in the Resource Management Act through section 6 and section 7.

There is a real risk when you do not have those environmental bottom lines that decisions are quite subjective, because it is just like a big washing machine where all these criteria come into play and there is no prioritisation of the most important factors. There is also a major difference here, and a real risk that the sustainable management purpose will not have the weight that it has in the Resource Management Act because there is no equivalent in this bill to section 104 of the Resource Management Act, which requires decision makers to have regard to various considerations subject to Part 2 of the Act. I would invite the Minister to comment when she next takes a call on whether this is a deliberate omission, so that the bill means that she, as Minister, and the Environmental Protection Authority will not be required to make their decisions subject to the bill’s purpose in clause 10, or whether that was just a slip because the Supplementary Order Paper has come into play relatively late.

There is Supplementary Order Paper 89 in my name, which seeks to address some of these issues. It addresses the lack of environmental principles. It seeks to better implement the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—the convention requirement to preserve and protect the ocean environment before exploiting it commercially by including a set of environmental principles to help guide decision makers, to help them prioritise. That would mean that they would be required to recognise and provide for a series of matters rather than just take them into account. So they put the emphasis on those matters. That would help us implement our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to preserve and protect the marine environment, because the matters that are listed in this Supplementary Order Paper include maintaining the integrity of marine ecosystems, protecting and preserving rare or fragile habitats, and preserving and protecting threatened species—that those get given greater weight than they are given in the bill at the moment. We think that would then take a step forward to making the Act much more consistent with the Resource Management Act, and the prioritisation and the hierarchy that you get in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, and giving that a similar prioritisation in this bill. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) : I will take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this bill, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Can I say that when this first came before the House, New Zealand First did oppose it because we had concerns about clause 10, the purpose of the bill. We were one of the Opposition parties that lodged a minority report seeking a change to the bill because the previous wording very much talked about a balance between economic development and the environment, and that is a very subjective word in terms of what is a balance. Is a balance fifty-fifty? Where is the balance, and if the economic factors are at a certain level will they override the environmental ones? We are very pleased that the Minister for the Environment, after a meeting with the delegation from the Opposition, reviewed that and was able to see fit to change the wording of the purpose of the bill. As a result, New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through the Committee stage and through to the third reading.

In supporting the bill, New Zealand First, firstly, would like to say that we have always said that we will support economic development where it is environmentally sustainable. We would hope and expect in good faith that the changes the Government has agreed to in terms of the purpose of the bill, and the Act when it comes into being, will provide sufficient safeguards for the environment to ensure that the environment is, basically, of course, the bottom line. In that respect, we do want to see economic development in this country. New Zealand First has always said that we want to see economic development, providing it is sustainable and in that manner. In terms of this bill, we have to remember that we are sitting on the fifth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world, with our 200-mile limit being potentially a very, very valuable resource for this small nation of 4.5 million people. Therefore, it is important that we do have a regime in place that will cover this. To not have this up until now, and to have legislation that, basically, took into account only the 12-mile limit and left the vast majority of the seas out there within our zone really open to all sorts of interpretation, was a big risk. New Zealand First certainly wants to see this enacted so that that risk can be closed off, to the benefit of all.

We also acknowledge all the submitters who came to the select committee, the many very good organisations that made some very constructive suggestions—much of which has also been taken up in terms of some of the amendments by the Government—and, in particular, Dr Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. She gave us some very sound reasoning on a number of issues, and, again, the Minister and the Government have taken up a number of those matters. =

However, there is still concern in parts of the Opposition in terms of some of the clauses, and we can understand that. We know that there are some technical terms and some of the wording that could be considered to still be slightly ambiguous, perhaps, and could be slightly misconstrued if misinterpreted. So perhaps there should still be some opportunity for some discussion on some of those minor points, but we are not going to die in a ditch about that. We are not going to stop this bill as a result, but perhaps the Minister would still be mindful that if there is still any room for any minor considerations in regards to some of those other clauses, then that would also be helpful and would show good faith, again, in terms of getting good support. We would hope at the end, because this is such as important issue for this country, that perhaps the whole of this Parliament can support this bill. At the end of the day, when you have got this huge, huge economic zone out there, which is going to have a direct impact on all of our people in this country, we would hope that we can have a collective buy-in from Parliament to try to do the very best by that economic zone.

Can I also just point out that many of the aspirations in this bill have been things that New Zealand First has had long-held belief in, in terms of what is required for our country. In terms of this, we have always said, through our manifesto, that we would seek an urgent introduction of interim standards for drilling and exploratory work in New Zealand waters, designed to meet New Zealand maritime conditions, while more comprehensive standards are worked out. We also have stated in the past that we would have a requirement that all drilling, exploration, and extraction projects in New Zealand waters be subject to public consultation. Exploration must be subject to the public concerns being mitigated, and, again, we expect that through this bill and by having this legislation in place this will be a platform to allow full and open public consultation on projects that are planned in the economic zone.

We also, however, would sound a warning that we have always asked that we set up and train appropriate people and organisations for risk rapid response teams to deal with maritime environmental emergencies that can be deployed at short notice in New Zealand or abroad. I think that is something that this Parliament and this Government need to give further consideration to in the future. If we are going to see increased activity in our economic zone, where potentially—and touch wood we would never see it happen—there could be a risk from some of the activities to our marine environment, I think the very least we should ensure that we have is the appropriate response capabilities to deal with that. I think, in the next year or two, and perhaps as the economic situation improves, we need to be mindful that New Zealand maybe has to beef up its maritime services and Maritime New Zealand capabilities to deal with any contingency that might arise.

In closing, can I just repeat that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill and we see great merit in it. I would like to just congratulate the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who were involved in this. I think we have been sitting on it for 4 or 5 months now. There has been a huge number of submissions. A large number of organisations, individuals, and people around New Zealand have submitted on it. It has been a very good exercise in terms of public consultation. It has also been a good exercise in alerting the Government to some of their concerns and in the Government responding to some of those concerns in an appropriate manner. As a result, I think we have got a reasonably good level of legislation here, which we can support. New Zealand First commends the bill to the Committee.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I want to start off by acknowledging the purpose of this bill and the amendments that the Minister for the Environment has brought to the Committee on Supplementary Order Paper 100. I want to acknowledge all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee—in particular, our chair, Nicky Wagner.

I think there are some very clear differences between some parties around this bill. I think what we on this side of the Chamber have been very clear about when it comes to our environmental policy is that we are interested in a very good risk management framework. That is what this bill is about: reasoned, sensible environmental policy based on good evidence and science. I think that part of my concern is that sometimes in this Parliament we do see emotion taking over. If we are serious about having some economic development in this country, then I think we have got to be very clear about where the risks are. I think what we have managed to do with this bill—and I do again congratulate the Minister on her amendments—is really ensure that we do have that balance, so that we have clear penalties, and we see that change in penalties from $600,000 to $10 million in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. Also, we need to ensure that we have a very good focus on sustainable management, and now that is reflected in the purpose statement.

I also think it is really important to remember that one of the reasons why we are here is that there is a regulatory gap. I was very pleased to see the statement from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment saying she congratulates this bill coming to the House and she congratulates the fact that there has been a wider conversation about it. We know there is a regulatory gap and we know that Parliament needs to do something, and that is why we are here. I think we have actually managed to end up with a pretty reasonable compromise that puts a very important risk management framework in place, which enables us to look at some of those economic development opportunities but also enables us to protect our environment. I think the changes that have been made in Supplementary Order Paper 100 are very important.

I also want to address just one particular aspect of Part 1—there will be an opportunity in other parts of the debate to deal with other aspects of the bill—and it is around the role of the Environmental Protection Authority. In this Parliament we pass legislation and we give confidence to certain institutions. I think that is where I would challenge the Green Party, because I think there have been a few statements that have been made around the role of the Environmental Protection Authority. We just want to be very clear that we have confidence in the Environmental Protection Authority and we do have faith in its ability and in its decision makers to make broad judgment on the matters that are reflected within clause 59 of the bill. I think we just need to be clear that we do have that faith and we do not see it as appropriate that as parliamentarians we fetter the discretion that we have given the authority under an Act of Parliament. I think a really important point is that there is a role for parliamentarians in setting out that overall framework from an environmental management perspective, but actually as to the detail of particular decisions, we need to ensure that we give that confidence to those institutions that we put in place. We have confidence in the Environmental Protection Authority and we have faith in its overall broad judgment, and that is why we set up the Environmental Protection Authority under this Government.

We have got a pretty good record when it comes to environmental management. We have done massive reform in terms of the Resource Management Act. We have put in things like the Environmental Protection Authority. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on cleaning up our rivers. This is just another piece of reform that this Government has undertaken. I think it is really important as well that it is actually reform around our oceans, because we know there has been a gap.

I congratulate this bill and I congratulate all the people who have worked on it. I think we have come to a really sensible balance that is going to not only protect our oceans but also ensure that we can potentially have a higher standard of living in this country. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) : I am pleased to make a contribution in the Committee stage of Part 1 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. Just picking up on the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye, where she mentioned about the attempt at a balance being made with this bill, that is exactly the language that has been removed from the purpose clause. We acknowledge the actions of the Minister for the Environment and her officials in attempting to address what were two main issues, I guess: firstly, the failure of the bill to actually meet the obligations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and, secondly, bringing greater alignment with the Resource Management Act.

There has been an attempt, obviously, to bring greater alignment with the Resource Management Act, but it is arguable that the amendment to clause 10, “Purpose”, does not go far enough in making sure that we meet our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in making sure that the preservation and protection of the marine environment is paramount. I know that this has been debated quite a lot in this Committee stage, but I just wanted to express our disappointment as well that we could not give further consideration to these amendments, which were hastily pushed into Supplementary Order Paper 100, at the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I would like to use my opportunity in this call to talk in support of two Supplementary Order Papers. The first is in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia, and that Supplementary Order Paper 96 seeks to amend clause 14, the Treaty of Waitangi clause. As Miss Sage mentioned in her contribution, there is a hierarchy in terms of our environmental legislation. What this Supplementary Order Paper seeks to do is to make sure that the Treaty obligations on the Crown are paramount and that there is primacy to the Crown and iwi relationship up front in clause 14. At the moment, as it is currently drafted, the obligations towards tangata whenua are pushed down, and are relegated to notifications by the Environmental Protection Authority on applications and the like. That does not go far enough, and, indeed, it is not consistent with many other general clauses. We cannot water down the Treaty. We cannot water down the Treaty. We must make sure that the general obligations between the Crown and tangata whenua and iwi are restored and put up front into those clauses. So I commend the Hon Parekura Horomia’s Supplementary Order Paper 96.

The second Supplementary Order Paper is in the name of the Hon Annette King, and that proposed amendment is to give recognition to the Moriori people. The Hon Annette King and I share the Chatham Islands in our electorates, and it goes without saying that the Moriori are the indigenous peoples of the Chatham Islands. Before there was Te Wai Pounamu, the actual name of the South Island was Te Waka-a-Māui. For everyone who knows their Māori mythology, Te Waka-a-Māui is the canoe of Māui, who fished up the North Island. The Chatham Rise, back in the day, was a stretch of land that stretched all the way out to Rēkohu, so the Chatham Rise could well have been the mast on the waka of Māui. But the Chatham Rise is a highly significant feature on the ocean floor. It is probably the most abundant fishery in the world. It supports a lot of the economy, not only on the mainland but also on the Chatham Islands. Also, there is a huge interest in the Chatham Rise in regards to oil and gas exploration.

The Moriori people, and the community of the Chatham Islands as a whole, gave a very compelling submission. Although I am not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I did read their submission. I did read carefully the submission from the Hokotehi Moriori Trust, and its plea to have recognition in the bill of Moriori and their tikanga. I have been part of that. Twenty-five years ago I was privileged to be on the Chatham Islands at the unveiling of the memorial statue to Tommy Solomon, who was the last full-blooded Moriori. Those events were the start of the, as they say, Lazarus-like resurrection of the amazing people of the Moriori. There has been recognition of Moriori right through, for instance, the Māori fisheries settlements. But in terms of this legislation, there is no direct recognition.

Therefore, I do support the Hon Annette King’s Supplementary Order Paper 104, which provides that Moriori are given specific recognition through the definition of “Māori”, and that it does include Moriori also. Likewise, “tikanga Māori” will also refer to “tikane Moriori”. The Moriori do have their own unique reo, their own unique language. I actually have not been taught in that, so I will not attempt to articulate the Moriori language, their reo. But I guess we want to support and make sure that we give recognition to that community, because, as I mentioned, the Chatham Islands does make a huge contribution. Potentially, there are significant development activities that will be taking place on the Chatham Rise following the passage of this legislation.

I just want to recap the Hon Parekura Horomia’s comments on the Treaty of Waitangi. We want to make sure that the Treaty of Waitangi is given primacy, which is a general obligation on the Crown. I support his Supplementary Order Paper 96. Likewise, I support Supplementary Order Paper 104, from the Hon Annette King, which does give recognition to the Moriori people and their special relationship, their culture, and their traditions with regard to the marine environment.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) : Thank you, Mr Chairman. That is very kind. I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill.

Hon Members: Steady. Don’t fall down.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: I will hang on to a podium here.

Dr Cam Calder: I’ll come and stand beside you.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you. This is the effort and the outcome of a very hard-working Minister and a Government that is getting on with legislation. We are not going to be taking 10 years to get on to this important issue—

Hon Member: Unlike Labour.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: —unlike the Labour Party and the previous Government—which affects the exclusive economic zone around New Zealand, the fourth or fifth-largest in the world. We were not going to wait until the end of the Olympics—as our friend from the Green Party suggested we should do—before we got on with any announcements. We are about getting on with the job, and not avoiding the issue. These are difficult issues that we need to resolve and deal with in this country. At the end of the day, New Zealand does face some continual dilemmas about how it balances and weighs up the importance of economic growth and the desire to retain and protect the natural environment we have inherited. That is what we continue to do every day, and what this bill is all about.

We can see, from Supplementary Order Paper 102, where the Greens are coming from. We have got a suggestion here from Mr Hughes, I believe it is, that basically says that no person may undertake oil or gas exploration or production in depths of more than 200 metres. That is it. It is simple—just do not do it. Do not do it. The Greens’ attitude and their response to New Zealand going forward and growing is “Just don’t do it.” and “Stop it all.”, and it is the same with fracking: “Don’t do it.” The Americans can be lifting their standard of living by getting access to shale gas, getting on with things, getting on with the world, transforming their economy, and making their economy much stronger, but not in the Greens’ world. It is simple: “No. Just don’t do it.” I suppose you have got to respect that approach. At least Green members are consistent. They stick to their guns. Their attitude is always the same.

From within this House we have heard plenty of criticism, however, of the slight contradiction that there is between the desire to provide jobs for people in New Zealand, in communities around New Zealand, to provide work and opportunities for people, and this continual desire to say no to everything that comes along. That is the Greens’ position. Labour—

Andrew Little: Have you got a new speech to give? Have you got something new to say?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Restatement and consistency are very important in this House. People want to see consistency. I see that the Labour Party continues on this issue here and has been raising a lot of red herrings—talking about the UN legislation. We are relying on the advice of the Legislation Advisory Committee, and we are relying on the advice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which have been very clear on this, that this bill is not inconsistent with our international obligations. I would certainly prefer to take their advice on this topic than take advice from that legal expert from the East Coast, Moana Mackey. I am not saying anything. I am not criticising her legal abilities by any stretch, but I am more inclined to take the advice of the Legislation Advisory Committee, which has been consistent all along that this bill here is consistent with our international obligations.

The most surprising thing, though—and I was greatly reassured to hear it—is that New Zealand First members, who were breathing fire and brimstone against this bill for a long, extended period, have now seen the opportunity to reconsider and have come in behind this legislation following the Supplementary Order Papers that were elegantly expressed and brought to this Committee by the Minister Amy Adams. So on that basis I am very supportive of this bill, and I think we should get on with it, get this legislation in place in time, deal with an issue that has been left to drift for so long, and get a clear understanding of what is and is not able to be done in our exclusive economic zone. Thank you.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Following on from the last speaker, Paul Goldsmith, if there is one thing that the members on the other side of the Chamber just do not get it is that the world is changing—the world is changing. There is a race on. There is a race on for resources, and they are mineral resources and they are fossil fuels. Whereas before there has been no proper and adequate regulation of the exclusive economic zone in this country, and, indeed, in many other places around the world, now there is a need to do that. It is those offshore areas that have become the target for the bounty hunters, for the pursuers of that mineral wealth. This side of the Chamber says that there is nothing wrong with chasing and pursuing those mineral resources, provided that there is recognition that this is not a long-term strategy.

The world is changing, and the availability of, particularly, fossil fuels is changing. What there are left are difficult to obtain or in difficult to get to places of the world. That is why deep-sea oil drilling has now become the key target of investors and oil companies around the world. It also means that even other mineral resources—and I am referring specifically to seabed ironsand mining—are getting harder to come by in many other places around the world. So the race is on.

But the other big change is that the world has become much more sensitive to, and aware of, the impact on the environment of this type of intervention, when it comes to harnessing and trying to get those resources. I know that in the area where I grew up and spent a lot of time, in Taranaki, it is not a simple equation of drill more, get more. There are many members in the community up there—and it will not be just in Taranaki, and it will not be just the surfers who go off East End in Fitzroy or down at Ōpunake—

Dr Cam Calder: Back Beach—Back Beach.

ANDREW LITTLE: Mr Calder, there are not many surfers down at Back Beach at the moment. There is a rāhui in place. The member may not be aware that there is a rāhui in place at the moment.

But, typically, the surfing community and many others who are dependent on that part of the great Tasman Sea for their livelihoods are very concerned about the proposed developments in that part of the world. I might also say that the surfies off Lyall Bay are somewhat concerned, too, not because they want to stop the opportunity but because they know and are aware of the impact that it will have. And so it is very important that the legislation that we put in place is sensitive to, and takes note of, the environmental impact.

So we come back to clause 10 of the bill, which is the purpose clause. Modern interpretation and modern judicial activity now look very closely at the purpose of legislation like this, and there is an expectation. The courts expect that Parliament will express itself clearly and consistently. If there are questions that are going to arise over the pursuit of development opportunities in our economic zone, then the courts will be looking at not only the regulatory legislation but our international obligations as well. That is why the purpose section of the legislation is so important. Where we clearly have international obligations that we are expected to meet as a compassionate global citizen, then we need to get it right.

The problem with the wording of clause 10, even in the Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100, is that it simply does not properly reflect the international obligations that we have. It is not enough to say that we just have this balance where one day we will go for unfettered, unrestrained development, and on other days we will pay due respect to the environment. It is about the international obligation that we have signed up to, which is to preserve and protect—preserve and protect—the marine environment. That is our obligation.

Although the international obligation does not stop economic development—oil drilling, seabed ironsand mining—it does mean that our principal starting point, our primary obligation, is to preserve and protect the marine environment. That puts an onus and an obligation on the regulators when they are considering applications for development to ensure that the safeguards—proper safeguards, meaningful and effective safeguards—are in place so that the marine environment, the seabed, and the sea that flows through it are not affected adversely or improperly, and so that we still have an ocean environment for future generations to partake of, to enjoy, and in which to harness the natural products of the sea and of the marine environment. So the point I am making is—

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I want to come to the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia, Supplementary Order Paper 96, and congratulate him on the work he did, which relates to the clause around the Treaty of Waitangi. What was very disappointing at the Local Government and Environment Committee was that there had been absolutely zero consultation with iwi on this legislation in the development of the bill. It really surprised the members on the Opposition side of the select committee that on a piece of legislation—

Simon O’Connor: Have you consulted iwi about this speech?

MOANA MACKEY: Yes, Parekura Horomia has consulted iwi in the drafting of this. I mean, look at that: “Have you consulted iwi in the giving of this speech?”. What a ridiculous statement. This is a piece of legislation that iwi are actually enormously concerned about. It might be a joke to Simon O’Connor, but the fact is that the Government should have consulted with iwi in the development of this piece of legislation. I mean, he only has to look up the East Coast at NgatiPorou, to Te Whānau-a-Apanui, who are deeply concerned about the implications of this legislation for their iwi, for their livelihoods—

Paul Goldsmith: Yeah, well, they should be concerned about getting some jobs, as well.

MOANA MACKEY: Because they will get jobs? Petrobras has said there are no jobs on the East Coast, actually, Mr Goldsmith, OK? So you can keep trotting out that same old line. I welcome any National MP to front up on the East Coast, because no National MP has, including our local MP, on this issue. I welcome all these National MPs who suddenly have so much to say about iwi—so much to say about how great it is going to be for iwi on the East Coast—to come at any point, because we have been waiting for a National Minister or MP to come up and have that debate and to provide the information, and perhaps allay some of the concerns that iwi have around it. But when you look at the attitude in this bill of not consulting with iwi—like when it came to the permit that was given to Petrobras on the East Coast, again, and iwi heard about it on the 6 o’clock news, as did the rest of us—there is kind of a pattern there that is disturbing.

Dr Apirana Mahuika from NgatiPorou came to the select committee. I have known Api for a long time, and I do not think I have ever seen him as angry as he was when he gave that submission to the select committee. In fact, the iwi submissions were the only submissions that actually said that this bill should stop completely and start again. See, most other submitters were actually very constructive, even though the Government ignored everything they had to say. They came along and said: “Yes, we need legislation, we want it to go ahead, but this is how we think it should be changed.” Those were very constructive submissions, and we welcome that. Iwi were so angry about this and about the Treaty of Waitangi clause, and about the lack of consultation, that they actually said: “You need to stop and do it again.”

We had a very compelling submission from Mark Solomon from NgāiTahu, who pointed out that when you look at the area of the exclusive economic zone that NgāiTahu have an interest in, it is astonishing that they were not told about the bill or consulted on it in any way. I would again urge the Government to think seriously about the way it consults with iwi on these pieces of legislation. When we had the submission from Te Iwi Moriori Trust Board, it came along and pointed out that it is only because of the Chatham Islands that New Zealand has such a large exclusive economic zone. It is only because the Chathams are so far away from the mainland and they drag our exclusive economic zone out as far as that, so it would like to have been consulted.

I welcome the Supplementary Order Paper, and I really do, in all sincerity, urge the Minister in the chair to consider Supplementary Order Paper 104 by the Hon Annette King, which would give recognition of Moriori people in the legislation, as we have done for Māori. We have done this in the fisheries legislation as well, so this is not something that is setting a new precedent that the Government would need to be worried about. It is done in fisheries legislation, and it is entirely appropriate that it be done in this legislation as well.

I know that there were members on the Government side of the select committee who were actually quite swayed by that submission, but in the end we were not able to get it across the line. I do think that perhaps, Minister, this is one Supplementary Order Paper that we could consider going through. I know that it would mean an awful lot to the Moriori people, and, as I am sure the Minister is well aware, they have some local debates going on about phosphate mining on the Chatham Rise, which means that this piece of legislation is particularly something that they are reminded of daily when they are looking at what is happening in that particular area.

I want to come on to clause 21 of Subpart 4, which is about the Environmental Protection Authority. The member Nikki Kaye made some comments about this along the way that I wanted to pick up on. In terms of our concerns about the Environmental Protection Authority, and we raised this at the select committee, we asked whether, if a legal challenge is taken against the Government questioning its authority under this piece of legislation to allow this activity to go ahead—putting aside all the issues we have with the purpose clause, putting aside all the issues we have with the clause around international obligations—the agency that actually awards the marine consent could be a factor that an international tribunal would take into consideration. Is that something that an international tribunal might look at when it is deciding whether or not that marine consent has been legally, I suppose, in terms of our international obligations, granted? We had a bit of a discussion around it, and where we got to was that the answer was actually yes. For example, if we were allowing Shell to issue marine consents on oil and gas exploration, that would probably be something that an international tribunal would say would put us in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That is an extreme example, obviously. But it does mean that we need to be very careful, when we look at the Environmental Protection Authority, as to how that might be viewed by an international tribunal.

The problem with the Environmental Protection Authority is that it does not have as its purpose the protection of the environment. We know that because when that piece of legislation establishing the Environmental Protection Authority was going through Parliament, Labour put up an amendment saying: “Here’s a really wacky idea: let’s make environmental protection one of the purposes of the Environmental Protection Authority.”, and the Government voted it down.

Andrew Little: No!

MOANA MACKEY: The Government voted it down. So you do not have to look very far, and an international tribunal would not have to look very far, to see that environmental protection, which is required under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is actually not part of the purpose. It was not just accidentally left out and not just unmentioned, but by a vote in Parliament the Government showed that environmental protection was not one of the purposes of the Environmental Protection Authority.

So, Minister, when we talk about the purpose clause and the importance of ensuring consistency with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, we need to make sure we get ourselves well over that line so that we can be absolutely certain. This is even more important when you consider the Environmental Protection Authority—and the Environmental Protection Authority officials were very good on the bill, as were all the officials; I want to thank the officials, as I meant to do in my first speech, who helped us on this legislation, because we certainly ran them through their paces. But the international tribunal will look at the Environmental Protection Authority and say: “Well, not only have you got this purpose clause that we don’t think quite meets your obligations but the agency that is dishing out the marine consents is actually an economic development agency.” That is what it is, if we are being brutally honest. It is not an environmental protection authority.

When we come to the functions and the clauses in Part 1 around the Environmental Protection Authority, I do think that it is a reminder of why we need to go back to the purpose clause and ensure that it gets us across the line for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, because we have left ourselves wide open in terms of the Environmental Protection Authority, being the organisation that administers it, having more legal challenges.

I want to just finish off by going back to some comments that Jacqui Dean made about Labour’s desire to see more replication of the language and legal tests of the Resource Management Act throughout the legislation. I am very pleased that she read that out, because that is absolutely what we believe. But when it comes to the purpose clause, that has to be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That is the bottom line for the Labour Party, and putting the language of the Resource Management Act in there, as we have said, is nice—I mean, that is great—but the Resource Management Act does not have to be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, so it does not get us over that line that we have to get over—the line that actually we are legally obliged to get over. This is not a kind of “nice-to-have” or a case of “We might want to do it.”

We have ratified this convention. The only reason we are even allowed to go and exploit resources in our exclusive economic zone is because we ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. So adhering to it is not a case of: “Well, you can if you want to, it would be nice if you want to.” It is actually: “You must.” That is why it is important to use the language, because, as my colleague Charles Chauvel said, a court is always going to look back to the treaty that gives us the right, which is the entire reason that we are actually putting this legislation into place in the first instance. The only reason we are doing this is that we have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, so to suggest that under the “International obligations” clause you do not need to look any further than this legislation, that this legislation is all you need, and that you can ignore the international conventions that we have ratified is simply not true, and the Minister knows that. The court is always going to go back to the treaties, which are actually where this legislation came from and are actually the reason why we are doing it. That treaty says quite clearly that we have a right to exploit those resources, but it comes with a duty and an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.

Why can we not just have that language in the legislation so that it can be clear that what we want to do is be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? That is all we want to do. Having the clause in there that we have now is better than the one we had before. The idea of balance was ridiculous and was never going to work, and good on the Minister for getting rid of that. We are very pleased to see that that has been abolished, but—

Dr CAM CALDER (National) : I move, That the question be now put.

GARETH HUGHES (Green) : Kia ora, Mr Chair. As we have been debating this afternoon, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is all about activities in the exclusive economic zone. What I want to quickly touch on, though, is the agenda, the rationale, behind the bill. This Government has got a clear “drill it, mine it, frack it” agenda for this country—this 19th century approach, where we are looking to the past for inspiration, not to the future economy. What we know from the Government’s amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 100, which has been tabled, is that they have had this green spin put on them by the Government. It has improved the purpose clause, partially, with the inclusion of “sustainable management”. It has upped the penalties. But what did not get covered in the media was all the meat that is in the amendments, and that is what I want to talk about today.

Although the media around the Minister for the Environment’s changes called them a back-down to the Greens and the green agenda, in the National Business Review, what it should have said is that actually what we are seeing is also a back-down to the oil industry. What we see in the amendments to clause 17 and in new clause 17A—the “Anadarko clauses”, as I call them—is this Government backing down to oil industry pressure. These are sops, in terms of both an SOP and a sop to the oil industry. What we are seeing is the amendment to clause 17 simply giving oil projects that have been rejected more time, and in new clause 17A we are making the outrageous suggestion that all you have to do to avoid having to get a consent for the period of passing this bill is simply to plan an activity.

I will go into that in a little bit more detail. Clause 17, to begin with, is around how planned petroleum activities may—

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member might not be aware, but the clauses he is discussing are not in Part 1.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think they are in Part 1A. The member will come back to Part 1. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES: Sure. I would like to talk about those amendments later, when we look at Part 1A. But what I would like to point out is my amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 102 that would amend clause 15 in Part 1. What my amendment does, quite simply, is make deep-sea oil drilling a prohibited activity. This is defined as anything greater than 200 metres.

The Government always says the Greens are against everything. That is its meme, its talking point that it goes on about at the moment. But the fact is that we are against dumb ideas. We are against ideas that are not in our economic interests. We are against ideas that risk our environment for foreign oil-drillers’ profit. It just so happens that many of those same bad ideas come out of this Government’s office.

My amendment to clause 15 would make deep-sea drilling a prohibited activity. We have got to do it, because it is a different kettle of fish from what we have done in Taranaki over the last 100 years, where we are talking about drilling only 130 metres deep. Now we are talking about, under this bill, this Government allowing oil drilling in New Zealand as deep as 3,000 metres. One of the permits under consideration by Minister Heatley is for drilling between 1,000 and 3,000 metres. This is at the frontier of science, the frontier of technology, and there is no amount of rules, regulation, or legislation that this Government can introduce that is going to plug a well. We saw from the Deepwater Horizon incident that a spill from an exploratory well cost $40 billion. What this Government is quite happy to allow are planned activities. All that drillers need to have is a permit to go ahead and drill exploratory wells in an environment—

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Clause 15 is also not in Part 1. It too is in Part 1A.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): There are several questions. I am going to put the questions now. The first question is on the amendment in Eugenie Sage’s name—

Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was seeking a call on two Supplementary Order Papers in my name, which I have not had an opportunity to speak on yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member has had two calls. I have started to put the questions.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 90 and 101 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 4 be agreed to.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to clarify with you what happened there, and why we are now voting on these clauses, given that Mr Hughes was actually still speaking. Did you terminate his speech?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I did not. He sat down, I looked around, and no one took a call. I commenced putting the questions. I was actually into the questions, so I just proceeded to continue putting them—simple as that.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 4 be agreed to.

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.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green) : One of the most eloquent submissions that we had at the Local Government and Environment Committee was actually the last submission. That was from a masters ecology student, Lan Pham, from Otago University, and she said: “[You can] acknowledge that the economic benefits which may stem from utilisation of resources contained in the EEZ and [extended continental shelf] may be enormous, but the ecological consequences associated with some activities would dwarf those economic benefits.”

The costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico—and that, of course, was an exploratory well, not a production well—were well over US$15 billion. That reflects the huge environmental and economic risks associated with deep-sea oil drilling. That is why my colleague Gareth Hughes’ Supplementary Order Paper 102, which would prohibit deep-sea oil and gas exploration or production in depths of more than 200 metres, is essential. We have seen, with the grounding of the Rena, just how difficult it is to manage an oil spill. That, of course, happened close to New Zealand’s largest port, it occurred in good weather, and it was within the one-in-100-year spill event for which New Zealand has a capacity to respond.

The Government will claim that the bill, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, is not about oil spills, and that is because it is in a state of denial that oil spills are a potential consequence of deep-sea oil exploration and oil drilling. When the Ministry of Economic Development did a comparative review of the management of offshore petroleum operations after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, it had a number of important conclusions. That review highlighted that these accidents, of course, were unpredictable and that we had very limited resources and expertise available in New Zealand to regulate or seek to control these sorts of disasters.

So when you combine this with the findings of last year’s formal review of our oil pollution response capability, which concluded that we have got unpredictable sea conditions around New Zealand and that this and our low sea temperatures mean that controlling an offshore oil spill would be “extremely difficult”, and that we have got in New Zealand the potential for a similar breakdown in oversight as occurred in the United States, because you have got several different agencies having varying responsibilities, that is why this Supplementary Order Paper in Gareth Hughes’ name needs to pass.

The Government is spending several billion dollars on responding to the Christchurch earthquakes. That is a major cost on our economy. Why would we contemplate having a similar economic cost from a disastrous oil spill from deep-sea oil drilling and exploration? That is why the Supplementary Order Paper should pass. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have a small announcement to make. The votes on Supplementary Order Papers 96 and 101 were incorrectly announced. The result should have been 48 in favour and 71 against, in each case. There is no change to the outcome of the vote and the record will show the correct result. My apologies to the Committee.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I want to talk about the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100, and I want to start with new clause 17A, which is for planned activities, not just existing activities, and I should say that these are transitional arrangements. This is recognising that there is already some activity taking place in the exclusive economic zone. Obviously, there needs to be some way of bringing them into this legislation, without being too disruptive to those who are already carrying out activities.

When we were discussing the transitional provisions at the Local Government and Environment Committee, there were some concerns that we had around those existing activity provisions. We just wanted to make sure that there were not going to be any gaps that might result in some kind of accident because it fell through a gap that we put in when we put these transitional provisions in place. We were reassured, I think, by and large—I mean, there were some arguments around some of the time frames and whether it was too short or too long, and industry had one point of view and the environmental organisations had another point of view. But, ultimately, I think we got to the point where we thought: “OK, well, the provisions for existing activities—probably there are not too many gaps in those.”

The reason that we were convinced of that is that it kept being raised time and time again that this was not about stuff that was just planned—this was about stuff that was already happening. So if we were to just shut that down, it would mean actually stopping something that was already happening, as opposed to something where someone had said: “Well, we’re intending to do this, but we haven’t started yet.” That was the point that reassured us. So to suddenly see that in this Supplementary Order Paper we are now extending out transitional provisions for planned activities, which we were reassured at the select committee would not happen, is really concerning—very, very concerning.

I would like the Minister to take a call on this, in all sincerity. I just want to read this out. The definition of “planned petroleum activity”, it says here, “means an activity involved with the exploration, prospecting, or mining for petroleum if, before the new regulations come into force,—(a) the exploration, prospecting, or mining for petroleum with which the activity is involved is authorised by a permit”—basically under the Crown Minerals Act—“and (b) the activity has not commenced.”

What I would like to know from the Minister is what this means for the permit that has been issued on the East Coast of the North Island to Petrobras. At the moment it has carried out seismic surveying, so that would be considered an existing activity, and there are clauses to deal with that and that is all fine and good. It has not yet done any drilling. I want to know whether this transitional provision means that because it has been given a permit by the Crown under the Crown Minerals Act, and because that activity has not yet continued, is it going to be able to go out and drill in the Raukūmara Basin, which is 3,000 to 4,000 metres deep, without having to get a marine consent and without having to go through a full process that involves public consultation and the ability for the community that I live in on the East Coast to have a say?

Maybe I have got that wrong, but my reading of the bill is that that could be how this is interpreted. I would really like the Minister to reassure me that this is not saying that just because something was planned, and someone has been given a permit, they are now basically exempt and will not have to go through the processes that we are setting out in this piece of legislation—they will not have to go through those processes because it was a planned activity.

That is very different from an existing activity, where someone is already doing something, and it would be unreasonable to say: “You now have to stop and go through all these processes.”, because they have made investments, and that is absolutely fine and good. But where they have not started that activity, and where the structures are not currently in place, they should have to go through the full processes in this piece of legislation.

I would like some clarity from the Minister around that, because obviously that will be very concerning as we have the Government going out and issuing more and more permits under the Crown Minerals Act. Before this legislation has gone through Parliament, before the regulations have been finalised, it is out there issuing permits. That now suddenly carries much greater legal weight than this clause in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, because under the bill as it came back from select committee that did not mean that just because they had the permit they were going to be able to avoid the processes in this bill. They would still have to go through them because they were not already doing that activity. This now says—or suggests to me—that they do not have to go through those processes, that they could just go out there and drill in the Raukūmara Basin without going through a process that ensures that environmental protection is considered before they start carrying out those activities. I would like the Minister to respond to that.

And then clause 17, and replacing clause 17(3) and introducing a major loophole, is also an issue. Maybe even if there was a time frame that was inserted within that clause—

Hon Amy Adams: There is.

MOANA MACKEY: The Minister says there is—

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) : I am happy to take a call and clarify that matter, and I have just double-checked it between Mr Robertson’s first contribution on it. The way that the wording of clause 17 works is that if, in fact, the application is returned as incomplete, then they have an ability to submit a new application but within the original 6 months, which was provided in clause 17(2) in the original bill. So it is not circular—it cannot go on and on. They can submit a new application, but the provisions in clause 17(3) and (4), as set out in the Supplementary Order Paper, make it clear that that can happen only in the original time frame set out in clause 17(2), which is the original 6 months.

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.

GARETH HUGHES (Green) : It is good to hear that contribution from the Minister for the Environment that it is not circular, and I agree with the recommendation by the member Moana Mackey that maybe it could be clarified a bit, because what we do not want to see is a whole bunch of legal challenges—a feeding frenzy for lawyers—as we try and work out what these laws actually mean. But it would be good to get more clarity from the Minister around new clause 17A. What does it actually mean—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress.

• House resumed.

• The Chairperson reported the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill without amendment and progress on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill.

• Report adopted.