Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill in its second reading. Just perhaps to settle the House down and to note the purpose of the bill, it sets up an environmental management regime for New Zealand’s economic zone, which of course is the part between the 12-mile limit and the 200-mile limit, and also the continental shelf. What the bill does is provide a legislative framework that is lacking at the moment—in fact, it is missing altogether—and puts processes in place to assess and to manage environmental effects in our oceans, to provide greater certainty to investors, of which there are a few, and also existing interests, of which there also are a few. It is also there to assist in meeting New Zealand’s international obligations. The bill aims, and I believe achieves in its aim, to do this in the most efficient and effective way possible. It is this Government’s desire, in the absence of legislation for the exclusive economic zone area, to do this without delay.

This bill is not, and is not intended to be, the Resource Management Act of the seas, if you like. The Resource Management Act was designed prominently as a piece of legislation relating to land-based issues. That piece of legislation, the Resource Management Act, reflects a multitude of interacting parties and interacting issues, so, therefore, it would not make sense in our relatively uncrowded—and it is relatively uncrowded—marine environment. Current levels of activity in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf are low, and indications are that New Zealand will not see a large number of new operations in the next 10 years. In fact, the number of activities needing consent will amount to, say, a handful in each year.

Clause 19, which I just want to briefly talk about, sets out a general duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse environmental effects. This includes a duty to provide training and supervision to all employees to ensure compliance with the legislation, regulations, and consent conditions, as well as sufficient resources, and also to establish appropriate management systems. These things are critical in the management of our exclusive economic zone. An impact assessment will form the basis for all consent applications, so that the Environmental Protection Agency—the EPA—can assess the effects on the environment and also on existing interests. The Environmental Protection Authority will be the decision maker for marine consents, and that is the difference from land-based activities, which are governed by the Resource Management Act. In this instance it is the Environmental Protection Authority that will be the decision maker for all marine consents.

Finally, in my brief intervention in this debate, it is interesting to note that between 1999 and 2008, 46 wells were drilled in the exclusive economic zone, with no legislation in place to protect the environment. It is disappointing, therefore, that both Labour and the Greens intend to vote against this bill. They obviously prefer a legislative vacuum. Thank you.

I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. New Zealand First will oppose this bill in its current form. Although we see many positive aspects of the bill, in that it will provide a long-overdue environmental management regime for New Zealand’s 200-mile limit, known as the EEZ or the exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf, we do have concerns about some aspects of the bill.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, known as UNCLOS, New Zealand has an obligation to manage and protect the natural resources of this 200-mile exclusive economic zone. This is an area 20 times larger than the land mass of New Zealand. It is the fifth-largest economic zone in the world. It is enormous. New Zealand, with only 4.5 million people, is fortunate to have such a large area of ocean and seabed under our environmental management. This bill will include the environmental management of activities such as mining of the seabed, energy generation, carbon capture and storage, oil exploration and extraction, and also marine farming.

New Zealand First does, however, have concerns in relation to the fundamental purpose of the bill, as did many submitters on the bill who came to the select committee. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I have filed a New Zealand First minority report, as have other Opposition members of the select committee, arguing that the purpose of this bill is a contradiction in terms. The purpose of the bill states that it “seeks to achieve a balance between the protection of the environment and economic development”, which are two countervailing and at times totally contradictory forces. The bill would have it that there is a balance and that these two factors will compete on a level playing field, as if it is a 50:50 proposition.

For instance, it allows deep sea drilling of oil, gas, and minerals, provided that its contribution to economic development outweighs its adverse environmental effects. How would you quantify that proposition? What if the proposition is determined to be greatly in favour of the economic benefits but with significant adverse environmental effects, say on a 70:30 split, for example? What would that sort of balance achieve in terms of the outcomes? Would this Government then steamroll it through—as it does in so many areas—because it would say: “Oh, it’s still balanced. It’s 70 percent in favour of the economic returns. Therefore, you know, the economic returns are balanced out by the effects on the environment.”?

We have seen too often with this Government that there is an eagerness to grab the short-term dollar, such as with the asset sales, over the long-term adverse effects on the New Zealand economy and the people of New Zealand. After all, this Government is happy to steamroll through all those State assets, when polls show that at the present time something in the order of more than 70 percent of New Zealanders oppose those asset sales. Would this Government conveniently ignore those adverse environmental effects because the dollar signs all look so tantalisingly appealing? Would it do that? Would it sell out the environment for a quick money trader’s buck? You betcha it would. You betcha it would.

New Zealand First believes that the default setting should not be a balance but should be robust environmental protection, introducing economic development strategies conditional upon minimal environmental risk. This should be non-negotiable. New Zealand First is not against economic development if it is environmentally sustainable, but this bill could allow intensive exploration of offshore oil, gas, and minerals to push the boundaries, overriding environmental risk calculations. The risk of environmental catastrophe is huge. Insurance and financial penalties are not high enough deterrents, as the Gulf of Mexico disaster clearly demonstrated.

In times of economic recession, as we have now, there is also huge pressure to create jobs, pay off debt, sell off assets, increase value in financial returns, and exploit natural resources. There is also a subtle difference between writing legislation not to create barriers to investors and actually encouraging foreign investment. Again, the bill would seem to tilt the balance in favour of fiscal advantage over our environmental endowment. The financial benefits are readily quantifiable in dollar terms now. This is instant gratification against the long-term devastation of New Zealand’s environmental and economic future. The idea that the Government can pick winners has been proven wrong time and time again.

New Zealand stands on the verge of succumbing to what is known—and this is a term that is internationally recognised—as a resource curse scenario. This is the easy fix temptation to focus on exploitation of natural resources, which could deplete skills, employment, and investment money from other major sectors. For instance, under a resource curse scenario, the real long-term economic advantages of tourism could suffer, as could New Zealand’s pristine image, because of short-term exploitation of our marine environment.

The bill should replace malleable concepts such as “sustainable development”, “precautionary approach”, “favour caution”, and “adaptive management” to eliminate unintentional ambiguity. Giving too much room for movement could backfire in appeals to the High Court and the inevitable court battles. The legal fraternity have pointed out to the select committee inconsistencies with international law, so this bill could be a field day for lawyers in the future in terms of our 200-mile zone.

In view of the above concerns, New Zealand First is unable to support this bill in its present form because it potentially lowers the environmental protection threshold in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. New Zealand cannot afford to jeopardise its extraordinary marine environment. We must get this bill right, because it has huge implications for our nation. If we get it wrong, we might see New Zealand’s favoured geographic position on the globe, in the clean waters of the South Pacific Ocean, being subjected to huge environmental risk, the consequences of which could have far-reaching effects on our marine environment, on our coastline, and on our “100% Pure New Zealand” image as a tourist destination.

New Zealand is a maritime nation. The marine environment, with its ecosystem, sustains thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in income each year from a wealth of industries—tourism, fisheries, and energy being just some of them. New Zealand has a unique association with the marine environment, dating back to the initial arrival of Māori and, more recently, Europeans. Throughout the history of New Zealand it has been a source of pleasure, of food, and of transport. The oceans around New Zealand and around the world are increasingly being exploited for their huge mineral and food wealth. New Zealand First in its election manifesto clearly stated that we support urgent introduction of interim standards for drilling and exploratory work in New Zealand waters, a requirement that all drilling and exploration projects in New Zealand waters be subject to public consultation, and setting up and training, appropriate to the risk, rapid response teams to deal with maritime environmental emergencies that can be deployed at short notice in New Zealand or abroad.

New Zealand First will oppose this bill in its present form and urges the Minister for the Environment to agree to amendments that will provide the greater environmental safeguards being sought by New Zealand First and other Opposition parties, while still allowing for economic development within the 200-mile zone, but ensuring that the environmental risks are put there as paramount as first safeguards in the process. Thank you.

I am very pleased to be speaking on this legislation, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I want to start by acknowledging all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, but particularly the chair, Nicky Wagner, who, I think, has done an outstanding job, often negotiating between members of the Opposition and Government members. I just want to acknowledge her here this evening.

Overall, I want to start off by saying that I think one of the issues that the select committee had to grapple with was a difference in philosophy between certain members. I would challenge some of the speakers whom we have seen regarding this bill to come up with a tangible risk-based system, rather than what I think we have heard throughout the select committee process as well as in this House, which is rhetoric.

Members on this side of the House do believe that there is an ability through this legislation to not just improve the status quo. We have heard that there have been 46 wells drilled in this area. We believe we are improving the situation. We are actually putting a decent management regime in. But, secondly, we are providing an appropriate balance that enables New Zealand to improve our economic development, and also have an adequate protection and risk-management regime in place. We are confident that we are able to provide that balance through this legislation.

I want to talk through some specifics around that. I want to make the point at the outset that we always hear the rhetoric from the Opposition, but when you look at the practical things and some of the things that it proposes, it is really just opposing economic development. We believe that, as I said before, not only are we going to improve the situation, because we have had no regulation in this area, with, already, 46 wells being drilled, but we also think that we can get the appropriate balance from an economic development perspective.

I want to cover a few things off. The first thing is that what is unique about New Zealand is the fact that the area of ocean is 20 times New Zealand’s land area. So part of what is interesting about this legislation coming to the House is that Parliament for many decades has focused a lot on what is land-based activity, but as someone in the environmental movement said to me when I was first elected, there is still a need in the oceans area to have better environmental policies. And what this bill is a reflection of is the Parliament saying that for an area of ocean that is 20 times New Zealand’s land area, we have to do more and we have to have a better risk-management regime in place.

So when we look at what this bill actually covers, I think we have to cover several areas. The first is that we have to look at what the activities are. As I said before, we have heard a number of scaremongering things from some members within the House, but some of the advice that we have had is twofold. One is that if we look at some of the activities that are going to happen, not all of it is about mineral exploration. We are also talking about marine farming, we are talking about energy generation, we are talking about carbon capture and storage, and we are talking about seismic surveying and cable laying, so it is not all about mineral exploration.

The second thing that I would say in terms of activities that are covered is that when we went through the select committee process and looked at some of the changes that potentially needed to be made, we did put a number of protections in. I just want to cover some of them. Clause 19 sets out a very general duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse environmental effects. The second thing that I would say is that from the advice we have, we do believe that the levels of activity in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf are pretty low, and this is going to bring me on to the reason why we did not choose to go down the Resource Management Act line, in terms of the legislation. The levels of activity are pretty low, and indications, we believe, suggest that we will not see a large number of operations in the next 10 years.

A big debate that came to the select committee was about why we do not just extend the Resource Management Act. What we are confident of is that this is different, that this is the marine environment, and that we have provided a management regime that enables regional councils to not only still have involvement but, I understand, have involvement under the Resource Management Act for regional coastal plans and consenting activities in the territorial sea. But when it comes to some activities—a small number—this bill will apply. That is a good thing for New Zealand, because what it means is more jobs through greater economic development. What it means, too, is reducing risk around some of these activities, because we know the framework is not in place now.

But, finally, what it also, I think, says to New Zealand is that we are going to provide greater clarity in terms of investors and existing interests that are there, and we will also ensure that decisions are made in a very timely manner. That has been a hallmark of National’s previous Resource Management Act reforms. It is not necessarily about changing what has been in the past under the previous Resource Management Act changes—the test from an environmental perspective—it was about ensuring that decisions were made in a timely manner and were cost-effective, to ensure that we do have greater economic development.

So what members on this side of the House are saying is that we have provided a cost-effective approach that is about reducing risk but also ensuring that in that area where there is very little management at the moment, we have an improved situation. I think that is a very rational approach, and I think that we need to be careful of some of the scaremongering that happens, because there are many other activities like marine farming and energy generation that this will apply to. And I think that is a very rational, balanced environmental policy.

I am very pleased to support this bill to the House. I want to reiterate the hard work of all the members on the select committee on both sides of the House, in particular the chair, Nicky Wagner.

I would like to begin my contribution on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill—have I got any time left; it is a long name on this bill—by reiterating the points that the member who has just resumed her seat, Nikki Kaye, concluded with, and that is to acknowledge all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, who have examined this bill, and the officials, who worked pretty rigorously to try to make improvements. But, unfortunately, they were not able to make enough improvements for us to support the bill, and that is a huge regret to me.

I am really sorry that is the case in an area where legislation was clearly needed, where all parties throughout the House—even, I understand, the ACT Party—have identified that there is a gap in our legislative framework. We did not have environmental protections, and also the security for work to be done in the exclusive economic zone without any huge litigation. We did not have that regime in place as we do on land with the Resource Management Act. Yet here was the opportunity for that legislation to fill that vacuum and it was found to be fundamentally flawed.

The reason for that was that in the purpose clause, clause 10. Rather than setting out what would meet our meet our international obligations, in what in my view is not only a legal but also a moral responsibility of a Government to ensure, as a primary focus, the protection of our environment, this bill does that old National Party trick, which is to talk about providing a balance. Well, actually, that is not what a protective regime is about. A protective regime is saying that something has to come first, and, for us, it is the environment.

We want economic activity, as the member for Auckland Central has indicated—we are supportive of that—but not at the cost of our environment, because you have only one chance. Some things cannot be repaired. Some things cannot be returned to the way they were. Therefore, you have a regime in place that says: “Yes, we want economic activity, but we will not do it to the detriment of our environment.” That comes first, and this legislation gives that opportunity away. So it is with some sadness that I say we cannot support this bill.

What a delight it would be to have every party in Parliament giving a clear message to people who want to have economic development in the exclusive economic zone. For those—I guess, all of us—who seek to ensure that that special environment is protected, what a wonderful thing it would be for every party in Parliament to say that this is the way to do it and to support it. But, instead, despite the huge efforts of the various parties, we have this bill. I want to acknowledge Andrew Williams, who has just resumed his seat, and I have heard Eugenie Sage speak on this bill as well as my parliamentary Labour colleagues. I want to acknowledge their hard work in trying to get some genuine progress made so that we could offer support to this bill as it progresses. I am sure that the environmental groups, who have today made public a letter to the current Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, feel a deep sadness, as well. This is an opportunity lost. So today the Environmental Defence Society, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand, and the Ecologic Foundation have released an open letter expressing their sadness. They have even said that they have proposed alternative wording for the bill to the Minister, which would mean they could celebrate and support its progress. But for some reason the Minister said no, and I do not understand it. Perhaps she has not yet got the confidence in her new portfolio that she had in previous ones.

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society conservation advocate Claire Browning actually said in the release that accompanied the society’s open letter: “We are not opposed to economic development in our EEZ provided we have in place environmental legislation that will properly manage the environmental effects and risks associated with those activities, especially in our deep oceans.” Who could argue with that? Well, it sounds like every single member of the National Government, and perhaps even John Banks, who I know has a strong commitment to environmental protection as well as to economic development, and understands that you cannot just trade off one for the other, and that some things are beyond repair, once they are damaged, and those are the things that we have a responsibility to protect.

When I read through the letter that I just referred to from the Environmental Defence Society, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand, and the Ecologic Foundation, it was with a lot of sadness, because those organisations all made submissions on the bill. They did not come along and say: “We oppose everything.”, as National has portrayed them. They did not come along and say: “We don’t care about unemployment, because we are so anti-development.”, as National has portrayed them. Those are not the submissions that they made to the select committee. They submitted to the select committee that not only they understood economic development in these areas but also they supported it, but it had to be after the environmental protection regime was in place.

I heard the Minister, and in fact some members, refer to the international obligations we have. The Minister was quite dismissive actually, and basically said: “Well, if a bunch of fringe tree-huggers want to come along and say we don’t comply with international obligations, I as a lawyer”—this was the Minister speaking, sorry; I certainly do not want to imply that I am a lawyer, heaven forbid—“don’t agree with them.” [Interruption] Apologies to one of your professions, I say to the Hon Chester Borrows. But it was not any fringe or extreme groups at all that said that under this legislation we will fail to comply with our international obligations; it was the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, amongst many others, who quoted the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. She said that this is what it says: “States have the sovereign right to exploit their natural resources pursuant to their environmental policies and in accordance with their duty to protect and preserve the marine environment.” It is not a balance—the protection. The duty of protection of the marine environment is paramount. It must come first. It must be in the purpose clause of this legislation, and it is not.

Then we had—and I suppose the Hon Amy Adams will dismiss this fringe tree-hugging group, as well—a group called the New Zealand Law Society. I notice my colleague Charles Chauvel inclining his head at the mention of its name. It came along and said in its submission that “The right to develop resources within the EEZ and on the Continental Shelf (conferred under the LOSC and customary international law) is subject to obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment,”. I draw the House’s attention to the specific words “subject to obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment,”.

This is not a balancing act. This is not a situation where some organisation will come along and say: “We want to work, we want to extract, we want to put in place any economic activity in the EEZ or on the continental shelf, and perhaps in return we could make a sizable donation. We could buy some land. We could expand a national park.” This is not a balancing act. This is not a trade-off. This is our moral and legal duty and obligation to preserve the environment. That is what we signed up to, and that is where this bill fails. So the purpose clause of the bill is wrong. Had the Minister listened to the submitters and the urges of other parties in this regard, we would have supported amending the purpose clause and consequential amendments throughout the bill, and we would have then been very happy to support it.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, the lack of protection of the environment in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf and the lack of security and confidence—the lack of a regulatory regime for those who wish to have economic development activities in this area—is a failing. It is a shortfall; we should have both. We should ensure that people who want to have economic development in this area know the rules. They should know that if they proceed along x, y, and z grounds, they will be fine. They will be able to do that work, without any litigation. It will not cost them a lot in court fees and arguments. They will know the regulatory regime. But, most of all, we have to have the environmental protections put in place.

The purpose clause remains as it is and, therefore, Labour, as we did right at the very beginning of this process, said that with great—[Interruption] We were the only party that said that from the outset. We said we wanted this legislation to be in place, but it is flawed to the point of us being unable to do that. There is a vacuum in our legislative regime. We would like to have filled it with legislation that did understand our legal and moral obligations to protect the environment first. Unlike National, we do not think of it as a balancing act, or as a trading-off. We know that some things once damaged cannot be repaired, and that is too high a price for us to pay.

We had the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We had the Law Society. We had local authorities. We had iwi. We had environmental groups. We had the spectrum of people interested in this issue, and overwhelmingly submitters expressed their great sorrow and concern that this bill just does not cut the mustard.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. It is an important bill. There is some agreement that a bill was needed. There was a legislative gap, because this is, after all, a vast area of ocean—20 times New Zealand’s land area. So legislation was clearly needed, and I believe that the gap has been very adequately filled by this piece of legislation. It is a robust process that we went through, as some of us here tonight know, as far as the Local Government and Environment Committee was concerned—there were 125 submissions—exhaustive, even. There was robust discussion amongst the committee members, actually. If you listened to the Opposition you would think that no changes were made and that nothing was listened to. This is completely incorrect. The committee members made many positive changes that were recommended, including exact clarification of what decision makers must consider, and whether they want to favour caution and environmental protection when the information is unknown or the facts are uncertain. So favouring caution was a very important thing, and clarification of that was tightened up in the wording.

Also the select committee changed clause 14, which dealt with the Treaty of Waitangi. There were much stronger requirements, in fact, after the select committee process to take the Treaty of Waitangi into account. There was also much wider reference to our international obligations—and let us be really clear on the provisions, because members on the opposing side have tended to gloss over this and say that we did not pay attention to our international obligations. I am not sure where they were when we were discussing this in the select committee. Some of them were sort of ring-ins and—

💬 Dr Jian Yang: Asleep.

—possibly asleep, indeed, and not particularly engaged. But the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is something that we have taken very seriously as well. As my colleague Nikki Kaye pointed out earlier, we actually put this through the lawyers—the legal team of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and they agreed. It was very much confirmed by a number of other legally qualified submitters to the select committee, including from the New Zealand Law Society, which we paid close attention to. So the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives New Zealand the right to explore and exploit marine resources in our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, but—and here is the but, and it came out in the select committee very strongly—it also provides the obligation to preserve and protect the environment. The word “obligation” is a very important one. It is one that we in the National Government take very seriously. It is a moral and a legal obligation.

Other measures that the select committee had a really significant input into—and changes were made as a result of this—was to give effect to international obligations other than the Law of the Sea. I mean by this the Convention on Biological Diversity, and to clarify that intention, clause 14 of the bill was amended to refer much more generally to New Zealand’s international obligations in the marine environment.

The select committee also recommended changes for a wider range of enforcement tools. They should be available to the public, as well as to the Environmental Protection Authority. The committee recommended that any person—any individual—is able to apply to the Environment Court for an enforcement order to remedy or address any breach under the legislation. As others have pointed out with this legislation, there needed to be more information, and there needed to be more rigorous opportunities to engage if there was something that was not correct, and that has been done. Those are the sorts of changes that have been brought in.

New transitional provisions have also been put into place—again, that was something that the select committee made a valuable contribution to. This Government is absolutely committed to making this legislation workable, and to making sure that there are adequate environmental protections in place in the short term and the long term.

Some people have argued tonight that the Resource Management Act should be applied to this, to the oceans. It is not possible. When you look at it closely, the complexity and the framing network—the network around the Resource Management Act—would be overkill. We are talking about a relatively uncrowded offshore environment in the marine area, and really I think that the Opposition has missed the point here. Under that law of the sea, New Zealand does not enjoy the full sovereign rights that we have on the land. It would actually be extremely difficult to apply the Resource Management Act in light of those rights, duties, and responsibilities. Other countries have those obligations and responsibilities within that zone. So there are a number of complexities around this, and make no mistake about it: these waters are a vital part of our environment, and they absolutely need protecting. I believe this legislation provides adequate protection.

But also looking at these waters—and we must, in these difficult times—they do offer significant economic opportunities. So, covered by this bill, there are activities including seabed mining, the building of construction platforms for oil and gas exploration and drilling, marine farming, energy generation, carbon capture and storage, seismic surveying, and cable laying. These are all extremely useful activities, and under this legislation, and under the regulations, and under the rigorous system that we have laid out in this legislation, I believe that we will be able to undertake the activities that I have outlined in a safe way, and not have any adverse effects on the environment.

Regional councils, of course, will still have a role. They will be responsible under the Resource Management Act for regional coastal plans, and also for consenting in any areas in that territorial sea, up to 12 nautical miles offshore. In my view, having sat through the 125 submissions, having looked at the bill and listened to the submitters very carefully—unlike other people, perhaps, who were calling in occasionally to the select committee—I would have to say that I absolutely support this piece of legislation. I think that Amy Adams has done a great job. I commend our chair, Nicky Wagner. I commend the hard-working members of the select committee as well. So I commend the second reading of this bill to the House. Thank you.

The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill should be one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation to be considered by the House this year. It should be as significant as the Resource Management Act was when it was passed in 1991, because it establishes a long-overdue environmental management regime for our oceans. Yet I am not proud to be speaking on this bill, because it is bereft of a commitment to the sustainable management of our oceans. The serious concerns about the bill on this side of the House mean that unless there are major changes in the Committee stage the bill is unlikely to be enduring as a piece of legislation, so there is no certainty for the industry that the pro-development regime that is in this bill will outlast a change of Government. The National Government has praised the Land and Water Forum as a collaborative process, but there has been no similar effort to find common ground in relation to the management of our oceans, despite their strategic importance to New Zealand.

The whole debate around this bill starts with the purpose clause. It is at the heart of the bill, and the criteria and process that the bill sets up for both the Environmental Protection Authority and the responsible Minister to consider marine consent applications and regulations are deeply flawed. The Minister for the Environment was honest when she said that the bill was about unlocking the economic potential of the exclusive economic zone, but the Green Party disputes the Minister’s view that the bill is environmentally responsible. When you have a purpose clause that requires decision makers to “achieve a balance” between economic development and the protection of the environment, the environment loses, virtually every time. That is because jobs and dollars trump those things that are much harder to measure: the decline in the population of a species, or the contraction of its range.

The Hon Ruth Dyson referred to an open letter that New Zealand’s major environmental NGOs released today. They expressed in that letter profound concerns to the Minister, Amy Adams, about the bill. They said that its purpose clause is “certain to lead to the degradation of the marine environment. It is also likely to lead to extensive litigation and uncertainty for industry looking to invest in offshore exploration.” This whole concept of balancing and trading off the environment against the economic gains, jobs, and dollars, is outdated, 1970s thinking. It is as if the Rio Earth Summit and the Brundtland Commission never happened. Sustainable management, which members of the opposite side of the House object to in relation to the oceans, is about allowing economic activity to provide for human well-being while safeguarding the life-supporting capacities of natural ecosystems and the ability of present and future generations to provide for their needs. But this bill has no environmental bottom-line, and no obligation to require users to avoid environmental harm. That is why it is contrary to our international obligations in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, because there is a requirement in that treaty to protect and preserve the marine environment, and to make economic use subject to that protection and preservation provision.

One of the bill’s other major flaws is that there is no hierarchy of matters that the Minister must consider in developing regulations and the Environmental Protection Authority must consider when deciding applications for marine consents. That leaves far too much discretion to the Environmental Protection Authority, and to how it is going to balance off environmental protection against economic development. That risks decisions being very expedient and pragmatic. Again, as the NGOs said in their letter to Minister Adams, the absence of a set of environmental principles to guide decision makers means that the bill remains “directionless, woolly and will invite extensive litigation.”

We had a number of submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee, making very constructive suggestions as to how the bill could be improved. But the fact that the mining industry was very supportive of the bill, and that the Straterra representative said it was a very, very good bill, shows that the bill is obviously biased in favour of development, and does not provide for sustainable management.

I want to congratulate the member who has just resumed her seat, Eugenie Sage, on her contribution, and to thank her for setting out so lucidly the case for opposition to this bill, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I am pleased that the Green Party has decided to join Labour in voting against the bill, because Labour members opposed this legislation from the start, for the reasons, by and large, that Eugenie Sage has just set out.

There are six reasons why this bill should not proceed. The first is the point that has been made about its inconsistency with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The entire purpose of this legislation is expressly to achieve a “balance” between the environmental and the economic. Well, that is not the regime we signed up to when we became party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That is an inconsistent way in which to deal with those obligations, where the right to exploit resources is accompanied by a very strong duty in international law to protect and preserve the marine environment, and that will not be possible if this legislation becomes law in its current terms.

The second reason that this bill is opposed by my colleagues and me is that it creates a regime that is substantially weaker than that contained in the Resource Management Act. There should be consistency between those two regimes. The difference between regulating the marine environment and regulating the environment on land is simply jurisdictional; it is not substantive. Local and regional authorities have already got years and years of experience and case law in terms of managing the activities that are within their purview, including oil and gas exploration in our territorial waters, under the Resource Management Act. In fact, my colleagues tell me that some industry submitters the select committee heard from actually supported a closer alignment between this regime and the Resource Management Act regime, on the basis that business would then, at least, have some certainty—they would understand what rules and standards were going to be required of them. But instead we have an entirely new regime that lawyers and judges are going to be arguing about for years—business is going to pay for that—and that uncertainty comes from the fact that the Government has decided to legislate inconsistently with our obligations. The difference will also likely lead to litigation over the years, so there is not just a cost and an uncertainty issue; there is the transactional waste that all that activity represents.

The third reason that we oppose the bill is that the process for issuing marine consents under it needs to be much more transparent than it would be if the bill passes in its current form. We are concerned that there are significantly more restrictions and barriers for submitters than there are for applicants. That is not fair, it is not right, and it is actually not healthy in terms of the sort of final outcome that would be desirable. The bill’s blocking appeals to the Environment Court is a major issue as far as access to justice and transparency are concerned.

The fourth reason that Labour opposes the bill is that iwi were not consulted in the drafting of this legislation, and that became quite apparent at the select committee. I heard some extraordinary stories about exchanges between iwi leaders and the committee and the committee chair. We are concerned that the involvement of iwi throughout the process outlined in this bill is only optional, and at the discretion of the Environmental Protection Authority.

The submission that was made during the select committee process that the bill should be amended to include reference to Māori and Moriori, and tikanga Māori and tikane Moriori, throughout the bill is absolutely right. We objected to the limited Treaty clause, clause 14. It does not impose a general obligation on the Crown to give effect to the principles of the Treaty.

Finally, we are very concerned that the provisions covering penalties and cost recovery for breach of the Act are completely inadequate.

Eugenie Sage and the Hon Ruth Dyson referred to an open letter to Amy Adams from the Environmental Defence Society, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand, and the Ecologic Foundation. It is an open letter to the Minister. It is a very, very important letter, and it is worth a read. I hope that all members, particularly members opposite, will have a look at that open letter. With that, I conclude my contribution, but I do, by way of point of order, seek to table the letter that has been sent to the Minister on an open basis.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

It is my pleasure to speak at this, the second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, which sets up an environment management regime for New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. I would like to state at the outset that this Government believes that our natural environment is our greatest asset, and that successful economic and environmental policies can and must go hand in hand. New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf are among the largest in the world, and they offer significant economic opportunities and unknown bounty, and could sustain and improve our living standards. But they are also an important part of our environment and need protecting. This bill fills a regulatory gap that currently exists in managing the environmental effects of offshore activities like petroleum exploration and mining in this area of the sea. So we go from open slather to a new regime.

I think it is a very politically interesting bill, because it neatly divides the House. On the one side we have got the Greens—one of what I refer to as the extremist parties, and I suppose Mana might be in the same camp—who basically do not want anything to happen at all. The idea of balancing economic gain and environmental preservation is anathema to them. By their logic, if there is any risk, you do not do it. Lord knows how they pluck up the courage to get into a car every day, because you have to take risks in life. Any negative effect on the environment is reason not to do something new, and for that reason they oppose new dairy farms, they oppose salmon farms, and basically they are keen to wind down the dairy industry because of the effect it has on the environment. Well, that might be nice as a slogan, but I do not think we all really want to lower our living standards to the degree that would be effected by their policies if they got an opportunity to bring them in. Amazingly, the Greens still talk about New Zealand’s living standards and housing affordability, and they worry about New Zealanders leaving to go to Australia, but when it really comes down to it, their instinct is to put roadblocks in the way of progress. You cannot have it both ways.

Then we have the Labour Party, which, basically, on this bill is a light version of the Greens. Labour members are torn. They know that most New Zealanders realise that we have to make a living in this country, and they like it. They know that we cannot opt out of the competitive world, and that our kids generally want to live in dynamic and exciting countries with strong economies and good job prospects. They know these things, and yet they do not want to be outdone by the Greens. So their position is basically the same: do not do anything, and bind up the process in a thick web of consultation and endless opportunities for litigation, delay, and uncertainty. Then, when it comes to New Zealand First—well, I cannot find anything coherent in its minority view. In fact, I defy anybody to make any sense out of what it is saying there. It appears that “New Zealand stands on the verge of succumbing to a resource curse scenario.”, according to New Zealand First. It sounds quite nice, actually, “succumbing to a resource curse scenario.” I do not know; I am not sure where it comes from.

But where we stand in the National Party is getting on with bringing in legislation to fill a gap in our regulatory environment and doing so in a practical and workable way that recognises that New Zealanders want and demand an effective economy, which means being open to using our natural resources. At the same time they treasure our natural environment and expect that our legislation seeks to strike a reasonable balance and practical balance, and I have every confidence—I have every confidence—that the Environmental Protection Authority will make the judgments rationally and with due caution, as is outlined in this legislation. It is worth remembering that up till now the environmental effects of activities within this area have been very narrowly considered, and the Resource Management Act provides environmental protection only to the 12-mile limit. This bill extends that protection right out to 200 miles and to the continental shelf, which is a major advance.

The bill provides a strong and effective framework to ensure that the processes are in place to assess and manage adverse environmental effects in our oceans, to provide greater certainty to investors and existing interests, to meet New Zealand’s international obligations—notwithstanding the complaints made on the other side—and to do this in the most efficient and effective way possible. The bill does not intend to be a Resource Management Act of the seas. The Resource Management Act was designed for predominantly land-based issues, reflecting a multitude of interacting parties. It would not make sense when you are dealing with maybe a dozen such cases in an area that is 20 times the size of New Zealand, and, indeed, is the fourth or fifth largest area in the world in terms of an exclusive economic zone. The current levels of activity on the continental shelf are low, and indications, as I said, suggest that we might not have more than 10 applications. To this end, clause 19 sets out a general duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse environmental effects. This includes a duty to provide training and supervision to all employees to ensure compliance with the legislation, regulations, and consent conditions, as well as sufficient resources and establishing appropriate management systems. An impact assessment will form the basis of all consent applications so that the EPA—the Environmental Protection Authority—can assess the effects of the environment and existing interests. The Environmental Protection Authority will be the decision maker.

All in all, I think this bill is a major advance in terms of the environmental legislation in this country. It does strike an effective balance. It shows that the Government does understand that we live in a real world where we have to make a living. We have to make some use of the resources that we have available to us. It just shows, you know, that some parties are aware of that and other parties talk about catching up with Australia, and growing the economy, but when it comes down to it, when pieces of legislation comes into the House, they are always in favour of ones that put roadblocks in the way of every bit of economic progress that this country needs and deserves. I stand for this, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.