Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill

The debate on this part includes the schedule.

I did want to take a brief call to start our discussion on Part 3, and there are really two points I want to comment on. The first is to commend the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee, of course, across the consideration of the whole bill, which I have been remiss in not doing to date in the Committee stage. In particular, I commend the committee on reviewing the changes that were made to this part of the bill. I thought the committee made some excellent suggestions, which really have enhanced the bill, particularly in the way we have made it clear now through the select committee’s recommended amendments that any person can apply for an enforcement order to a consent and the consent conditions issued by the Environmental Protection Authority. I certainly think that that will give considerable comfort to some parties who were concerned about that part of the bill initially.

The other change to this part of the bill that I want to comment on is one of the more significant changes that I am recommending in the Supplementary Order Paper in my name, Supplementary Order Paper 100, and that is to clause 125(1)(b). The bill as reported back from the select committee contains a maximum penalty of $600,000 for a company for breaching the Act, and through the Supplementary Order Paper in my name we are recommending that that limit be increased to $10 million. This is a sizable increase. It is more than simply moving it up a bit. It really represents a significant change and reflects, I think quite rightly, the severity of the potential actions in this space and the seriousness with which we as a Government and, I would hope, we as a Parliament would reflect the views we would take of anyone breaching this Act.

I think that it is a way in which this House can send a message to judicial bodies coming after us who are considering the appropriate manner in which to deal with any company that chooses to come here and has scant regard for the laws this House puts in place. I think it is important that we recognise not only the type of activity that we will be dealing with in this space, and in the exclusive economic zone we are fortunate in that there is a much more narrowly defined set of potential activities that we are considering, and also the likely players that work in that space. It is certainly my view that it is important to set penalties that are of a size that companies of that magnitude will take notice of.

It is certainly my intention that with a maximum penalty of $10 million we will be sending a very clear message to those companies that we expect full compliance with the legislation. We expect full compliance with the regulations. And if they choose not to act in full compliance they can expect to be dealt with harshly. So I think this is an important change, and one I wanted to discuss my rationale for in this Chamber, and I would hope that we get support for this part of the bill.

Just to pick up where the Minister for the Environment left, around the question of penalties in clause 125 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, I want to congratulate the Minister on that amendment. I think, as she has noted, the change here is a significant one. Even my maths can tell you that moving from $600,000 to $10 million, there are a lot more zeros, and it is certainly something that on this side of the Chamber we are very pleased to see has been included. I think there was a feeling in the Local Government and Environment Committee and in the submissions that came in that the amounts of money that were being considered in terms of penalties simply were not adequate for the possible damage and the seriousness with which this Parliament would view such a matter, so I do want to congratulate the Minister on her amendment to that particular clause.

In the spirit of that, I seek her agreement to Moana Mackey’s changes to clause 125(2), (3), and (4), which are outlined on Supplementary Order Paper 103. These are other penalties that we believe should also be increased in order to indicate the seriousness with which we would deal with these—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Yawn!

Sorry, is there someone over there who is not enjoying this? No. Under clause 125—sorry to keep Judith Collins, but it is only the small matter of the destruction of part of the marine environment. There is no need for the Minister to stay awake for that—none whatsoever!

💬 Jacqui Dean: Protection of the marine environment. Carry on.

Both—the protection, actually; that is right, Jacqui Dean. Clause 125(2) covers—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Grow up, silly boy.

Well, no, I am the one who is actually trying to make a serious point here. Clause 125(2) states: “Every person who commits an offence … is also liable on conviction, if the offence is a continuing one, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 …”. Moana Mackey is proposing for that to be increased to $100,000. Clause 125(3) states: “… summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000, and, if the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $1,000 for every day …”. Moana Mackey is proposing that that be increased to $10,000 every day, as well. So these are in line with the amendments that the Minister has already proposed, and I would hope that she will see fit to adopt those, along with the one that she herself has proposed.

The other matter in Part 3 that I would like to draw attention to is clause 103, “Appeals on question of law”. On this clause we believe that the Government has taken far too narrow an approach on two specific points. First is the point that appeals can only be on questions of law and not also on questions of fact, and second is the place to which appeals may go. In this case it is proposed to be the High Court. My colleague Charles Chauvel has a Supplementary Order Paper that proposes amending both so that appeals can be on the questions of law and fact, and also that those appeals should find their way to the Environment Court.

There is a lack of full appeal rights in this particular law. This is one of those issues where we welcomed the Minister making this bill more consistent with the Resource Management Act in the purpose clause. We did not think it went quite far enough. Here is another example where we believe having more consistency with the Resource Management Act would be the appropriate thing to do, particularly around the question of where these appeals should go. The Environment Court was the place, under the Resource Management Act, that drove the development of case law. It was the place in which there was further policy development as a result of the Environment Court being involved, and it does seem to me that in the case of the exclusive economic zone we are going to see a significant amount of case law develop over time, and that the Environment Court is the appropriate place for that to go. The question of whether or not the Environmental Protection Authority has the expertise to deal with everything is certainly one that I would raise here but, more to the point, I think the Environment Court has the experience, through the Resource Management Act process, to play a very important role here, and that is the appropriate place for appeals to go.

We also do believe that those appeals should be beyond just matters of law. That is a very limiting provision. Again, these are going to be significant cases that are going to be taken here. These are going to be people who have concerns that perhaps will not be able to be dealt with through the Environmental Protection Authority processes. There will be occasions on which the Environmental Protection Authority perhaps does not have the competence in law to be able to deal with these matters.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and no progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.