Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill

Kia ora. It is great to have 1 minute left to talk about this bill, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. In the first 9 minutes of my speech on the bill I talked about all the reasons why the Green Party is opposing this bad legislation, from the fact that it fails our international obligation to the fact that it prioritises economic development over environmental considerations. It does not preserve and protect our environment, which is why we are able to use our exclusive economic zone. It fails to account for climate change entirely. It contributes to legal uncertainty around the precautionary principle. It is just going to be a feeding frenzy for lawyers. It fails to meet the Treaty, fails the principles of natural justice, and contains no marine protection. And although the Government has gone out to the public, asking: “Do you want drilling to be prohibited, discretionary, or allowed?”, it has gone out last week and allowed 40,000 square kilometres of our ocean to be at risk. Although we support an exclusive economic zone bill, we will not be supporting this exclusive economic zone deep-sea drilling bill.

Why do the Greens not just come out and say it? Why do they not just come out and say no, instead of dressing up their debate around the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and around various provisions of the bill? Why do they not just come out and say that they want to say no to anything that means advancement for the New Zealand economy? Why do they not just say it? Why do they not just use a little frankness and openness in this House, and say what they really think? Why do they not use a little “frack-ness”—frankness—and say what they really think, which is that on anything that advances the economic well-being of New Zealand and is to do with the environment, they are just going to say no?

Well, in fact, this Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill does a number of things. What it does is fill a regulatory gap that currently exists in New Zealand regulation. Outside in the exclusive economic zone currently there is no regulatory framework for activities that occur in the exclusive economic zone area. Yes, we do have the Maritime Transport Act and we also have the Health and Safety in Employment Act, which provide some environmental protections out in the exclusive economic zone, but we do not have currently a framework for regulations and marine consents. That is what this bill does.

Why the Greens could possibly be against a bill that provides for frameworks for regulations and marine consents quite frankly is beyond me, but I am sure they will have another opportunity to put their case to Parliament. What this bill does is provide for independent decision-making from the Environmental Protection Authority. It also gives effect—and this is, again, where I disagree with the view of the Green Party and, indeed, the Labour Party—to our international obligations. It is most important to remember—I recall a contribution from a Labour member in the previous time when this bill was debated—that this bill is not about oil spill response. This is not about mineral allocation or marine reserves. This bill is not about fishing.

During the course of the Local Government and Environment Committee scrutiny of this bill, a number of discussions were heard around the Resource Management Act and why it was that the principles of the Resource Management Act were used for part of this bill and for part of this bill were not used. We received some pretty good advice on that, and I just want to go over it because, for some reason, again, some Labour members seem to be suddenly very fond of the Resource Management Act, and feel that it should be the piece of legislation that is given effect to in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. But there are several reasons why it should not be. There are areas of the Resource Management Act that are not applicable to the bill, and that is because of the different regulatory context of the Resource Management Act and what is happening in the exclusive economic zone area. I guess, for practical reasons, there would be provisions describing restrictions on—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.