Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill

I move, That the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill be now read a third time. This is a bill that is long overdue. It will plug a regulatory gap so that for the first time New Zealand will have a comprehensive environmental management regime in place to protect our oceans. If New Zealanders are to have jobs, a strong economy, and a high standard of living, we cannot afford to ignore the vast, untapped economic potential that lies beneath our seas. However, this Government is committed to ensuring that this is done in a way that is environmentally responsible, and this bill gives us the opportunity to look at planned developments to decide whether the environmental effects are acceptable and how they should be dealt with. That there is currently no such process on our statute book is unacceptable, and is to be corrected here today. The Environmental Protection Authority will be the decision maker under the framework, running the nationally notified marine consent process for discretionary activities, which provides the opportunity for public and iwi to submit on any proposed activity of this type, and to be heard at a public hearing.

New Zealand has international rights but also obligations around the way we use the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and the marine environment that surrounds us. Those rights specifically refer to and protect our sovereign right to explore and exploit our offshore and undersea resources, and call on us to ensure that development is undertaken in a way that balances economic return with environmental safeguards. This bill recognises and has been demonstrated to be consistent with those international rights and obligations, and the decision-making framework requires the consenting authority to undertake just such an exercise.

Through the Committee of the whole House we made some significant changes to this bill, which have improved stakeholder certainty around the purpose, strengthened penalties for non-compliance, and ensured workable transitional arrangements for industry. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of this House who have approached the bill with an open mind and, after due consideration of the changes we have proposed, are now prepared to support this much-needed legislation, recognising, quite rightly, that the bottom line is that New Zealand is in a better position with this legislation than without it. It is disappointing to me that some parties are still taking the view that they would prefer to have no framework at all in place, which, after all, is the option before this House today. For my part, I am proud that we have produced a strong and effective piece of environmental legislation that will provide certainty for industry and investors in development activity in our oceans, while protecting this special and vulnerable marine environment.

I want to turn now to some of the key changes that have been made to the bill, starting with the purpose clause. There is a natural comparison to be drawn between the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill process and that under the Resource Management Act. Both are consenting regimes, addressing the blending of economic and environmental objectives, and both leave broad discretion to the consenting authority as to the way in which that overall broad judgment should be exercised. In addition, in respect of offshore activities, it is not hard to envisage applications that cross or could have impact on both sides of the 12 nautical mile limit, and therefore fall for consideration under both the Resource Management Act and the exclusive economic zone frameworks. With this in mind, and the issues of clarity raised by stakeholders around the original drafting of the purpose clause, we saw merit in aligning the purpose of the exclusive economic zone bill more closely with that of the Resource Management Act by incorporating explicit reference to “sustainable management”.

In making this change, I reflected in particular on the use of the word “balance”. Although balance is an easily understood expression conversationally, as a legislative provision of such import, however, I saw it as less than ideal. The use of “sustainable management” relating to the use and development of our resources, in conjunction with the detailed information principles within the bill, is designed to provide for fundamentally the same process but directed through better-understood legal mechanisms. Certainty of how the purpose will be interpreted was a key issue for industry and NGOs alike, which were concerned that the balancing purpose considered at the select committee could result in extensive litigation to clarify its interpretation. The concept of sustainable management, on the other hand, is well defined in domestic legislation, through more than 20 years of resource management case law.

The Government has also been listening to stakeholders who were concerned that the enforcement tools in the bill lacked the teeth to incentivise compliance. This, along with greater clarity in the purpose statement, was one of the key issues that Opposition members and stakeholders raised with me in respect of the bill. It is our intention to send a very clear message to businesses operating in our exclusive economic zone: although we welcome investment in New Zealand, we absolutely expect you to follow the rules, and if you do not, you can expect to face serious consequences. For this reason, Supplementary Order Paper 100, which I introduced at the Committee stage, increased the maximum criminal penalty for corporate entities under the bill from $600,000 in the bill as introduced to $10 million, in addition to the daily rate for ongoing non-compliance.

The final change of substance we have made through the Committee of the whole House is to the transitional provisions. The Government has clarified that planned petroleum activities permitted under a petroleum permit will be able to commence for a period of 12 months following the commencement of the legislation. This is simply a pragmatic change required for these activities to adapt to the new regime. Unlike other activities, planned petroleum activities have to commit to a drilling rig, a huge expense, up to a year in advance of exploration. The bill as introduced allowed for a 6-month transition within which the consent was to be applied for, and made clear that the activity could proceed and continue during the processing time. Given that planned petroleum activities occur only during the summer season, the net effect in terms of operations is unchanged. However, it means there will not be the potentially farcical situation of a consent being processed, and by the time it is determined one way or the other the activity in question would have ceased in any event. To manage environmental concerns in the short term, operators remain obliged to prepare and lodge an impact assessment with the Environmental Protection Authority prior to commencing their activity.

In conclusion, I am very pleased that through helpful feedback from stakeholders and parliamentary colleagues, I believe we have crafted and refined this bill into a high-quality and workable piece of legislation. I want to take a moment to particularly acknowledge and thank the team of officials from the Ministry for the Environment and others seconded into the work programme. They have worked tirelessly on this legislation, with an unwavering commitment to improving the management of our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf for the past 2 years, and I am deeply grateful to them for their efforts. Can I also thank members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, chaired exceedingly well by the MP for Christchurch Central, Nicky Wagner, for its detailed and helpful consideration of the bill and for refinements it made to it. Finally, can I acknowledge and thank my predecessor, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, for his commitment to the shaping of this legislation and for taking charge of seeing it into this House.

This bill will help us unlock the enormous economic potential that lies in our oceans in an environmentally responsible way that supports our clean, green reputation. With the passing of this legislation, New Zealand will finally have a comprehensive environmental management regime in place for our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

The only thing that the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill will unlock is hordes of lawyers making a lot of money as court cases are fought out in domestic courts and in international tribunals. That is what this piece of legislation unlocks. It is a shame, because Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First made an approach to the Minister for the Environment to try to find a compromise on what is undoubtedly a very, very important piece of legislation. It did not need to be a political football, but, unfortunately, after what we thought was a very good meeting with the Minister, she was not willing to address the concerns that Labour members had about this piece of legislation, apart from increasing the penalties—and we did welcome that change, and we voted for it at the Committee stage. But apart from that, the significant concerns that we had going into the Local Government and Environment Committee were not addressed, they were not addressed in the Committee of the whole House, and we will be voting against this bill at the third reading.

Primary to our concerns is whether or not this piece of legislation is in line with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Minister keeps saying: “Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Yes, it is.” Well, she can say it until she is blue in the face, but it is not going to make a blind bit of difference until it is tested in a court. What Labour has been saying, and what it has been so disappointed about, is that there was a very simple solution to this. If we actually believe that this piece of legislation should be consistent with our international conventions, and presumably we all do, and if we all agree that it is good to have no question about that and to put it outside of any question that it is—and I would think that that would be what we would want—then why would we not use the language that is in the convention to show that this piece of legislation is consistent? That language is around preserving and protecting the marine environment. The National members will get up over and over again and say that it is consistent, it is consistent, it is consistent. But no National member has said why they did not just put it completely out of doubt by using the language in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea around preserving and protecting the marine environment. Then we would not have to even have that debate.

This is a contentious piece of legislation. This legislation is going to be the legislation that regulates a very contentious activity, and that is deep-sea oil and gas drilling. There is a high level of public interest in this piece of legislation. There is a high level of concern about that activity. Minister Heatley does not seem to think so. That does not surprise me. He is very out of touch in this portfolio area.

💬 Hon Annette King: Most portfolios.

In most portfolio areas, as the honourable member Annette King says. There is a high level of interest in this, because people are concerned, and it appears that the Gulf of Mexico disaster completely passed the National Party members by. They did not think at all that that changed the public’s perception of this particular activity. They did not think at all that that and the Rena disaster changed the way New Zealanders think about the protection of our marine environment. It is unbelievable that they would not want to do as much as they possibly can to allay the concerns of the public—

💬 Hon Phil Heatley: I just smiled.

Apart from just smiling, Mr Heatley; it takes a little bit more than that if we get a massive oil spill. It takes a little bit more than that. Even your laughter will not stop that. As magical as it is, your laughter cannot stop an oil spill in the deep sea. I am pleased that the Minister seems to think that this issue is a joke. It is actually not.

What we want to see is robust legislation in our exclusive economic zone. We have the Resource Management Act within our territorial waters. So what we have now with this piece of legislation are two completely different regimes operating side by side, regulating exactly the same activity. This line in the sea is jurisdictional only. It is only because beyond 12 miles it is not our sovereign territory, and within 12 miles it is our territorial waters. It is nothing to do with the environment, nothing to do with resource allocation, nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with anything to do with the marine environment, other than being jurisdictional. So why would you have two such different regimes—very different regimes—operating side by side, regulating exactly the same activity? It does not make any sense at all, unless you deliberately want the two regimes to be different so that the one in the exclusive economic zone can be more permissive than the Resource Management Act is. One energy company that came to the select committee actually quite openly told us that that is why it liked it, because it was going to be far more permissive than the Resource Management Act, and it was going to allow activity to go ahead that perhaps would not have, had we had a regime in place that was as robust and as stringent as the Resource Management Act. We had the Taranaki Regional Council, which is used to dealing with the Resource Management Act in terms of oil and gas exploration, tell us that it would like to have seen more consistency with the Resource Management Act because it is used to using it, it knows where the goalposts are, and it knows what the thresholds are. We do not know all these new legal terms that the Government has fabricated for the legislation, and we have no idea what, ultimately, they are going to mean in practice.

Instead of using and calling on 20 years of Resource Management Act case law and using legal terms that are well defined, where people know where the goalposts are, we have invented new terms like “favour caution”. No one knows what “favour caution” means. We all know what being cautious means, but this is a piece of legislation, and, ultimately, there is going to be a legal definition and a legal test of what “favour caution” means. It should not be a court that just decides this out of the blue and then we go backwards and forwards, when we already have case law under the Resource Management Act where people know where the goalposts are. Why are we going through that entire process again unless you do not want those tests, which are well understood, to be applied in the exclusive economic zone? That is the reason for it. The National Government will not say that. The only plan it has for the economy, apart from selling our assets, is to ramp up oil and gas exploration in deep-sea water in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not true, and the member knows it.

It is true. So because it has got no other plan, it is desperate to get this stuff flying ahead, and it wants to put as few barriers as possible in front of the companies that are going to go ahead and do this. But it is not good enough. This is a real missed opportunity—a real missed opportunity—because it is in no one’s best interests for this piece of legislation to become a political football. It is in no one’s best interests to have the National Government passing this piece of legislation and the Labour Party saying that when it comes to Government it is going to change it and swing in the other direction, instead of asking as to what we can lock down now and how we can find a compromise that everyone can live with where we feel confident that the protections for the environment are there.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is very, very clear. We have a right to exploit the mineral resources in our exclusive economic zone, but that comes with an obligation to preserve and protect the marine environment. There is no qualification on that. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said in her submission to the committee, the exploration of those mineral resources is optional, but the duty to protect is not. We could have been absolutely clear, absolutely categorical, in this piece of legislation that that was what this Parliament intended—that we have a right, but that comes with an obligation, an absolute bottom line. And we have not done that in this piece of legislation.

We are also very concerned about the restrictions on the public—for example, not being able to appeal to the Environment Court, being able to go only to the High Court, and then only on points of law. When you come to issues as complex as these, where communities—and they are up against some very tight time frames, potentially, in this legislation—do not have the resources that the industry has to pull together evidence and to gather their arguments, they do not have the money to do that, they do not necessarily have access to the expertise to do that, and, as I said, they could be doing it up against potentially very tight time frames, you need to have an ability for them to appeal not just on points of law but on points of substance. That is a very important part of the process, and it sends a very clear message in the Resource Management Act that it is good to try to resolve as many of these things as possible before you get into that formal process. It provides an incentive for people to actually engage with key stakeholders when they know that if they have not got their facts straight, if they have not given some parties enough time to respond to that, that they could be taken to the Environment Court.

The Environment Court has a wealth of knowledge in this area—a wealth of expertise. Instead, we are sending it to the High Court, and only on points of law, which is obviously deliberately meant to shut down a community’s ability to respond to what they see happening in their exclusive economic zone and their marine environment that they believe to be detrimental. We believe that that is an important part of natural justice and it should not have been removed in this legislation. We note that the Government has already notified its intention to do a similar thing in the Resource Management Act on mining projects. Again, we say that sometimes these things can be a very false economy. When you start to take away a community’s ability to actually have access to natural justice on issues that could detrimentally affect their environment, then that is a retrograde step and we would not support that.

As I said at the beginning, it is a shame that we are here on the third reading of this bill when we could have done so much more. I do want to thank the officials who worked on the bill. They worked incredibly hard. It is a contentious piece of legislation; it was very technical. They were wonderful officials to work with, and we do thank them for everything they did and for all the hoops that we made them jump through. But, at the end of the day, this bill falls far short, and it did not have to be that way. Our marine environment is far too precious to be gambled away on a piece of legislation that simply does not provide the level of environmental protection that our communities would expect this Parliament to be passing. When you see what happened with the Rena disaster, with that amount of oil washing up on the beaches of the Bay of Plenty, that should have been a warning note to the Government that it needed to do better in this space.

This legislation, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, puts in place a proper regulatory regime for the 600 million hectares of ocean for which New Zealand has responsibility. It is good law, it is long overdue, and it fills a significant gap in New Zealand’s environmental laws. I want to commend the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, for the work that she has done on it, particularly over the last 3 months in refining this bill with her Supplementary Order Paper 100.

I do want to say how disappointed I am that the Labour Opposition members have chosen to oppose this bill. It is a party that is opposing for opposition’s sake, and I want to expose some of their arguments. The member who has just spoken, Moana Mackey, made a great deal out of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I have a very simple question for that party and members who are opposing this bill. How do we meet our obligations under that convention with no environmental law at all in the exclusive economic zone?

💬 Hon Phil Heatley: They did it for 9 years.

For 9 years Labour did not have any regime of independent environmental assessments at all. It did 16 deep wells without it. Did a single Labour member say: “Hey! Whoa! Stop! We’re not meeting our international obligations under the law of the sea.”? There was not so much as a peep from the Labour Party and, for that matter, from the Greens.

Then we come to the issue of why we are not making it more consistent with the Resource Management Act. Let me make this point very simply, because I do not believe Labour seriously believes this was simply an exercise in extending the Resource Management Act’s jurisdiction out to the exclusive economic zone. The Resource Management Act sets up a very complex system of national policy statements, regional policy statements, and district plans. All of these documents can take in total up to 9 years to complete the regulatory process for managing the environment. We are expecting at most six consents per year under this regime, as compared with 40,000 a year under the Resource Management Act. Does Labour seriously argue that we should have the complete fabric of the Resource Management Act’s national, regional, and district planning documents out in the exclusive economic zone? I do not seriously believe it does. I believe it is simply clinging at straws to try to find some excuse to oppose this important environmental statute.

The member who has just spoken has claimed that National has not taken any account of the worst environmental tragedy to occur in the last couple of decades, in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, this Government immediately commissioned an independent review of both our Maritime Transport Act and our Resource Management Act and our proposed exclusive economic zone legislation to ensure that we did learn the lessons from the Gulf of Mexico, and those recommendations are contained in this very bill that Parliament now debates.

The final point that was made by Moana Mackey was that we should have appeals to the Environment Court on any decisions that are made by the Environmental Protection Authority in respect of consents or declines that might be made under this exclusive economic zone legislation. Well, I put this to the House: that is really a cop-out for saying that Labour does not want to see any resource used in the exclusive economic zone. I give a simple example: the previous Government legislated very clearly that the issue of climate change should not be taken into account in resource consents. That is right now being appealed by Greenpeace, off to the Environment Court. Anybody who read the Hansard would know that was deliberately the intent of the previous Labour Government. If we are to allow appeals on points of substance before the Environment Court on the consents under this legislation, it will mean that it will take up to 2 years to get a consent—at least an extra 18 months on process. Let us be honest. That will drive away any investment, at all, in the exclusive economic zone, and I do say that this country has a larger area of continental shelf than any, per capita. We on this side of the House say that there are opportunities for us to be able to responsibly use those resources. If Labour is serious about going down that path, it should be honest and upfront and say that it, in effect, refuses to have any use of the economic resources in that space. I would draw your attention to each of the big pieces of environmental law that have been passed over the last couple of decades, whether it is the ozone protection law, whether it is the Resource Management Act, whether it is the hazardous substances Act, or this, which is of similar moment. Every one of those bills was passed with both National and Labour support.

It really is a cop-out for the Labour Party to be opposing this bill, dancing on the head of a pin over a few minor issues. Let us just follow what Labour has been saying in the course of this debate. In the first reading, members said that they would prefer that the bill made reference to the principle of sustainable management, which is in the Resource Management Act.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Done.

And that is done. They said at the time that they would prefer that we had higher fines.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: That’s right. Done.

The fines have been increased, and put up to $10 million. That is done. The only argument they have left is truly pathetic. They are saying that this bill requires decision makers to show caution when there is a lack of information, and they are saying they are opposing this bill because they would prefer that it used the precautionary principle. Well, can I put the record straight: in both the Committee stage and the contribution we had from Moana Mackey, she said the language that is used in this bill has not ever been used before. Hello, hello. Have a look at the Fisheries Act—passed and supported by the Labour Party. It used exactly the same language as the exclusive economic zone legislation in respect of caution, and my simple question to members opposite is why that language would be acceptable in the fisheries environment, of which, actually, this bill includes a huge amount, but not appropriate in this bill. Again, I think it reinforces that Labour is just absolutely desperate to oppose, or find any excuse, and I think that speaks volumes about its broader problems, in that it knows what it is against but not what it is for.

I want to conclude by just marking how significant this legislation is for New Zealand. We have the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf of any country on this planet. I would say that if our country, New Zealand, cannot responsibly manage the ocean environment, who can? I say that it is absolutely consistent with New Zealand’s “clean, green” brand to show that we are able to responsibly manage that area. I think we need to be upfront about the fact that with the increased pressure for resources, there is a higher level of interest in the minerals and other resources that exist within this huge ocean space. Equally so, with new technologies, it is becoming more accessible and we are more able to use those resources, and the position this Government has taken, that we should pick up those economic opportunities, but it should be done in an environmentally responsible way, with independent environmental assessments, is the right way forward.

This bill puts a huge responsibility on the Environmental Protection Authority, which this Government created in 2009. We started with responsibilities for nationally significant projects, and with responsibility for hazardous organisms and for new organisms, with the emissions trading legislation falling under its jurisdiction from December last year, and now with this new responsibility in the area of the exclusive economic zone, in my view it completes the creation of that important new authority. The passage of this bill will raise new challenges for Government around marine reserves, around marine mammals, and around other things that we need to do in the ocean space to ensure that New Zealand is going best practice. But the passage of this bill is the most important step that New Zealand has taken in more than a decade to put our environmental laws into a state of which we can say that we are responsibly managing this country’s huge natural resources.

I want to deal with a number of the points that were made by the previous speaker, Dr Nick Smith, because he suggested that the Labour Opposition was opposing this bill on a basis other than principle. Nothing could be further from the truth, as that member knows, because it has been Labour’s position from the start that this bill is inadequate.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Pure politics.

No, Dr Smith, it is not pure politics. Dr Smith, you are the master of that art in this House. People on this side of the House take principled positions and I want to say exactly what those positions are. Let us start with first principles, the principles around our international obligations. No amount of assertion on the part of National that this legislation is compliant with those obligations will make it so in the face of the submissions that were received from experts, who were very clear that that was not the case. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is absolutely clear, in article 192. Article 192 states: “States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.” Article 193 goes on to allow for the exploitation by States of their natural resources, but it is “pursuant to their environmental policies and in accordance with their duty to protect and preserve the marine environment.”

Dr Smith knows, because he introduced this legislation—and I thought it was interesting that he failed to acknowledge this in his contribution just now—that when the bill was introduced, it had a purpose section that actually pitted the environment and the economy against each other. I said in my contribution during, I think, the Committee stage that the current Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, deserves some credit for modifying the purpose clause. The worst of the pitting of the two considerations against one another has been removed, but it still falls short of properly protecting New Zealand’s environment, just like other important environmental legislation that we have seen introduced by this Government. It is just like the Environmental Protection Authority Act, which was referred to by the previous speaker—an environmental protection Act that does not even include in its purpose statement a duty to protect the environment. That is the sort of commitment to the environment that we have seen from this Government, and it is reinforced in this legislation.

The legislation is inconsistent with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, where the right to exploit resources is accompanied by a very clear duty to protect and preserve that precious marine environment. The international obligation section as amended, if it passes in its current form, will mean that decision makers have no obligation whatsoever to have regard to our international obligations. The chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, who I apprehend might speak soon, conceded as much in the Committee stage. She said that that was a deliberate choice, urged on her by the officials. So what do our international obligations mean to National? Why are we legislating in derogation of them? Why are we seeing in the House legislation that actually ignores those obligations and, moreover, within the four corners of the legislation calls for them to be ignored? This is not good practice, and it is certainly not consistent with what we have told the world we will do.

The second objection that Labour raises to this legislation, and has maintained throughout, is that the regime it will create will be much weaker than the regime that is created by the Resource Management Act and that applies on land in New Zealand. Dr Smith said that only six applications per year are anticipated to be dealt with by the Environmental Protection Authority under this legislation, whereas there are thousands and thousands of applications under the Resource Management Act. So why would you apply the same tests? Well, there are a number of reasons. First of all, everybody knows what the tests are under the Resource Management Act. The law is settled. It is clear and well understood, so no confusion will arise. No litigation risk or cost will arise from putting the same regime in place onshore and offshore.

But, perhaps more important, as we saw with the Rena disaster, there is a very, very important issue here. Maybe there will be only six applications that might be dealt with every year, but the consequences of failure—the consequences of weak conditions being set as part of the consenting process—are catastrophic when they occur in the marine environment, and they cannot be allowed to occur in that environment willy-nilly. That is why tough protection is needed within the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf.

As I said, the tests under the Resource Management Act are well understood. Local and regional authorities already have experience managing those activities. The Environmental Protection Authority would be able to pick up that experience, understand it, and apply it very easily if the same sort of legal tests were proposed in this legislation, but instead we have a completely new regime. Some industry submitters made this point in the Local Government and Environment Committee. I read their submissions with interest. They basically said it would make sense to have a closer alignment between the two, on the basis that it would give business certainty—the sort of thing that National talks about but does not practise terribly often.

Businesses understand how the Resource Management Act operates. The completely new set of legal tests that will be put in place under this legislation will simply mean arguments in court between lawyers for many years to come while the law has to be settled as to what it actually means. The bill adds new terms such as “favour caution”, which are not widely understood or defined. In addition, there is a definition of “adaptive management” that is completely different from that which appears in the Resource Management Act case law. So these are examples of the problems that I am pointing to with this different regime that is being set in place.

The third objection that the Labour Party has raised consistently in respect of this legislation is that the process for issuing marine consents should be much more transparent than it is proposed to be. We are concerned that there are significantly more restrictions and barriers for submitters than there are for applicants, and we are very disappointed that the bill blocks appeals to the Environment Court, the very body that has expertise in dealing with these sorts of specialist objections and issues. It makes no sense to bar the jurisdiction of that court, and that is a step that we should be very, very concerned about.

The fourth objection, again advanced consistently by Labour throughout this process, has been the Government’s complete failure to consult with or involve iwi through the process that has been invoked in getting this bill into the House. Their input into the processes that are set out in the bill will be optional only and at the discretion of the Environmental Protection Authority. We supported a submission made that the bill should be amended to include reference to Moriori and tikane Moriori in the bill. We put up an amendment to do that, and National voted it down. We objected to the Treaty clause in clause 14. The bill does not impose a general obligation on the Crown to give effect to the principles of the Treaty. Again, we put forward an amendment to fix that, but National voted it down, showing its real lack of commitment to any of the Treaty principles that ought to appear in the legislation.

We are also concerned that the provisions covering penalties and cost recovery for a breach of the legislation are inadequate. Yes, we supported the increase in a penalty for non-natural persons to $10 million, but the other penalty levels are too low. Again, the consequences of a disaster occurring in our marine environment are catastrophic, and we ought to show that we take this seriously by having a stiff penalties regime in the bill.

Finally, in answer to Dr Smith’s charge that this is the first piece of important environmental legislation that has not been treated in a bipartisan way, the process for dealing with this bill has been shambolic. The select committee was rushed and did not adequately consider the issues. There was a raft of amendments required that were put forward by the Minister, which were also shambolic and rushed, right at the end of the process. Those changes are significant and have not been subject to proper scrutiny and consideration, because they were put forward after the select committee process ended. This is not the way to legislate on such an important matter, and these are the principled reasons why the Labour Party will not support this shambles of a bill.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the third and final reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Economic Effects) Bill. The Green Party, for a long period—in fact, for the entire time of our history in Parliament—has called for overarching oceans legislation to deal with the issues that this House is dealing with now, but also for overarching legislation that looks at spatial planning and looks at marine protection. We believe that what we need is a holistic package on how we relate to our oceans. We agree with the member Dr Nick Smith that Labour, in its 9 years, should have acted. It had the opportunity but did not. But we disagree with his misrepresentation that the Greens were silent over that period. In fact, in the entire time we have been in Parliament, we have been calling for this.

Our oceans face a number of challenges—from the recent news of the Arctic melting at a record level this summer, through to acidification, overfishing, and pollution. It is important that we get this right. This is a historic opportunity for our Parliament to make sure we do pass enduring, robust legislation for iwi, community, and recreational users—everyone who has an interest in our oceans, which is all New Zealanders. We are intrinsically connected to our oceans. We love our oceans. We want to do it right, and unfortunately this Parliament is missing an opportunity to pass enduring, robust legislation. Instead, what we are doing is passing a permissive, weak bill, which, quite simply, is not going to be protecting and preserving our exclusive economic zone; it is simply going to facilitate risky, extractive activities. It is going to make deep-sea drilling “eezy”.

We have got the fifth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world. It is internationally significant. It contains some amazing ecosystems. But it is also something that we know very little about. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has only scratched the surface, if you will, of what is in our oceans and what is down in the benthic environment, and we really do risk trashing not only that valuable “clean, green” brand but also some special, unique ecosystems in this rush for minerals and extractions.

What we are going to see as an outcome from this bill is, quite simply, a feeding frenzy of lawyers as they try to interpret what “favour caution” means, when we have had the opportunity to use the internationally and nationally recognised precautionary principle instead. We are going to see the lawyers, in their feeding frenzy, try to debate the adaptive management provisions. We do not think the bill has been drafted to an adequate standard, and it is simply going to be benefiting the lawyers.

We saw a raft of amendments that were not in the spirit of working with the Opposition parties, and not in a manner that was going to see Opposition support and a realistic and honest conversation with the Opposition. We saw the amendments tabled at the Environmental Defence Society conference, which is a shame, because all the Opposition parties went to the Minister for the Environment quite constructively, trying to improve the bill. Sadly, we saw these amendments slammed down on the Table, if you will. We would have preferred the bill to go back to the Local Government and Environment Committee, because what we saw was just spin—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: You came, I listened, and I changed the bill. Rubbish!

—quite simply, spin coming from the Minister, who is talking about rubbish over there in the corner. We saw spin. There were a few improvements, but there were the other measures that did not make it because of the Olympics being on. Those were things like the “Anadarko clause”—the transitional provisions that are sops to the oil industry. We should have seen another select committee appraisal of these significant, very thick amendments so that we could have got it right. We missed an opportunity.

We have got a number of objections to the bill. We do not believe that the bill is going to be meeting our international obligations. We think the purpose clause is still too weak. We have gone only halfway to improving it. The bill entirely fails to account for climate change. It ignores the precautionary approach. It fails our Treaty of Waitangi obligations. Quite simply, it fails the principles of natural justice when it comes to appeals in the High Court. And it fails to look at the other side of the coin, which is spatial planning and marine protection.

Before I go into the substantive part of my contribution, I would like to thank the submitters, thank the officials, thank the Minister, and thank Nicky Wagner, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. We saw a number of very high-quality submissions made to the select committee. Some of those people are in the Chamber today, and I would like to thank all those people.

Firstly, what we need is overarching, holistic oceans legislation that looks at spatial planning and marine protection. What this bill is going to do is move the spectre of deep-sea drilling closer. The Government has got no plan when it comes to the economy, apart from “drill it, mine it, frack it, cut it, sell it”. It is the lazy approach to economic development. It takes no vision, no planning, and no sense of where future trends are going. It simply hopes that we are going to find some of the last century’s energy sources in the ground, without looking to the future. It is a lazy path to economic development, which puts our environment at risk, yet we are going to see hardly any taxes, hardly any royalties, and hardly any jobs for New Zealanders, and the profits are going to flow offshore.

This bill is regulating how we deal with consents, be they for phosphate in the Chatham Rise, the gas hydrates, the methane deposits, which this Government is deciding to subsidise—and it was revealed last week that the Government is subsidising research into extracting the gas hydrates stored at the bottom of the ocean—or risky deep-sea drilling. So when we look at the international obligations, numerous submitters, such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, told the committee that in their opinion the bill failed to meet our international obligations. The bill as it came out of the committee was strengthened, but the Minister’s amendments further weakened our consistency with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to protect and to preserve our marine environment.

The Minister said she had a legal opinion on the previous drafting that shows that some people think this bill will be consistent. What we need to have is a new legal opinion based on the new wording. If the Minister thought it was going to be consistent with our obligations, why on earth can we not say that it is going to be consistent? The fact that the Minister had to remove from the text of this bill that it be consistent with the convention shows that this Government is worried that it will be interpreted consistently, and all we are going to see, as Moana Mackey pointed out, is lawyers interpreting this. It is the lawyers who are benefiting from this, not the environment.

We saw the Minister strengthen the purpose clause, but only halfway. She has moved away from that flawed ideology of balance, where you can degrade the environment a little bit if you are going to get a little bit of gain, or you can degrade it a lot if you are going to get a lot of economic gain. We have gone away from that flawed, failed ideology, and instead we have seen the sustainable management principle, but we have gone only halfway. We are trying to make it closer to the Resource Management Act, but we are failing to have the requirement for decision makers to recognise and provide for it. We have gone only halfway because we do not have all the other provisions that would be made in a similar environment under the Resource Management Act.

For the Green Party, our economy relies on a healthy environment. We need to have environmental bottom lines, and those are, quite frankly, missing—absent from this bill. I think the most damaging part of this bill is the failure to account for climate change. In fact, it is more explicit than that. The Environmental Protection Authority is unable to consider the effects of greenhouse gases and climate change when considering applications. This is 2010. The Arctic is melting at a record rate. We know that it is happening. We know that humans are causing it.

💬 Hon Members: 2012.

Well, if the Government side wants to quibble about the date but will not have a proper debate around the big issue facing our planet, it shows this Government’s priorities. It does not care about the future of the planet. It does not care about the environment. All it cares about is facilitating risky deep-sea drilling for its lazy economic plan.

It is egregious that we are seeing the environment removed from the bill. It continues the bad trend of the Labour Government in 2004, when that Government removed it from the Resource Management Act, treating it as if the planet does not matter. We see the member Annette King’s common-sense provision around the Moriori ignored by this Government. We see the Treaty of Waitangi provisions weakened. When it comes to the Environment Court, we think it would have been more appropriate and fair to have appeals to the Environment Court. Instead, what the Government has done is allow appeals only to the High Court on points of law. We have got a specialist court, the Environment Court. We have got a body of case law developed. The Government quite simply wants to expedite these risky plans in our environment and remove the ability for Kiwis to have recourse to natural justice.

We did see improvement on the penalties—probably the only suggestion from the Green Party that we have actually seen picked up by the Government—and we acknowledge that. But what we also need to see is the Minister of Energy and Resources actually making sure that these companies have got to have full insurance liability, because at the moment that is not there. The transitional provisions, the so-called “Anadarko clause”, are simply a sop to the industry to make it as easy as possible for it to exploit our environment, where we get so little environmental gain. There is no marine protection and no spatial planning provisions. This is not oceans legislation; this is an “eezy” deep-sea drilling bill.

What we need to see is future Governments strengthening this law, as we have missed a massive opportunity in this House. It is disappointing that the Minister for the Environment would not engage constructively with the Opposition so we could have seen a robust bill that had the support of this whole House. I do not think we were that far away, but it is a shame that we will not see that today. I have outlined a number of reasons why the Green Party will not be supporting this bill. We support the intent of an exclusive economic zone bill. That is why we voted for its first reading. We will not be voting for an “eezy” drilling bill.

I am very pleased to support this Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill at its third reading. It is very interesting listening to Gareth Hughes talking about the bill. It sounds like it is a totally different piece of legislation, because this is a really important bill and it has been a long time coming. We have probably been talking about it for nearly two decades.

As we know, our exclusive economic zone is enormous. It is 20 times larger than the land mass of New Zealand, and it is one of the largest and most diverse exclusive economic zones in the world. We have control over it. It is ours because of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That convention gives us both rights and responsibilities: the right to access resources in that area, and there are significant resources there that can be important to our economic future, but also the responsibility to look after our marine environment.

The purpose of this bill is to promote the sustainable management of natural resources in this area—the sustainable management. That is what Kiwis embrace. Kiwis love the ocean, and I do agree with Gareth Hughes—that is absolutely true. Mostly we interact with our coastal oceans, but our deep-sea ocean, for a country that is a small speck, is incredibly important and we embrace the fact that it must be managed sustainably. This bill will give us the framework to do just that. The bill provides a framework for environmental management, to ensure that any activities in this area—and we do not expect a large number of activities; maybe up to a dozen consents a year—must use best practice. They must avoid or remedy or mitigate any possible environmental damage.

We believe that this legislation does indeed meet our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as believe our advisers, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which has been involved in negotiations around the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Certainly, it meets those obligations much more than when Labour was in Government for 9 years and did nothing to legislate in the marine environment, although during that time it drilled 16 deep-sea wells. We are far better off with this legislation to protect our environment than we were under Labour, which did nothing.

The activities that will be covered under this legislation include petroleum exploration and production, including structures; seabed mining; marine scientific research; submarine telecommunication cables; and any other activities that may arise in the future. That is an important catch-all, because technology is changing significantly and we must err on the side of precaution when dealing with these new technologies for any work that is done in this area.

The legislation aligns with the Resource Management Act—and that was an important discussion, because the first 12 miles of our ocean are covered by the Resource Management Act. There is a transition between those 12 miles and the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. This legislation uses the same type of characterisation and categorisation: permitted, discretionary, and prohibited activities. But the default in this case is for a discretionary activity. Unless that activity is categorised or deemed as permitted, or it has a consent, it must go through that process.

Parliament has been working on this bill for months—actually, we have been talking about it for years—and there have been many changes and much debate. There has been much debate in the Local Government and Environment Committee and with the Minister for the Environment. It was very pleasing when Dr Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, put out a press release saying that she felt “This is important legislation and the Government is to be congratulated on bringing it into existence and doing so by way of a wider conversation.” She also said in that press release that she is satisfied that the legislation will provide significant protection for New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone.

I would like to thank everybody who worked on this bill. I would like to thank the two Ministers who were involved: the previous Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who formulated this legislation over a long time, and our present Minister, the Hon Amy Adams, who has brought this bill through the House. I would also like to thank all the advisers and the drafters, and the Clerk of the House and her team, and, finally, all the members of the select committee for robust debate. We worked hard on this bill and I think we improved it, so I am delighted to see it passing today. I believe that it will protect the marine environment of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, and that it is something that New Zealanders are very keen to support.

I am really disappointed that some parties will be voting against this bill, because voting against it means that the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf will have no protection, and nothing to look after that very special and diverse marine environment. New Zealand is in a far better position with this legislation than it has ever been in the past, or would ever be in the future without it. Thank you.

Andrew Williams.

Well done. I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. As we have said in this House, New Zealand First will be supporting this bill and supporting the Government with this legislation. I do not intend to take a long call on this, as it has been stated on three or four occasions now in this House, but we feel this legislation is long overdue in terms of our 200-mile limit. We have the fifth-largest economic zone in the world—ocean zone—and, therefore, without this legislation, it certainly does not have the necessary sanctions on it and necessary legislation on it to ensure that the activities out in that zone are being monitored by this sovereign nation.

I want to congratulate the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, and the officials for this extensive legislation, which came before the Local Government and Environment Committee nearly half a year ago. It has been an extensive piece of work. It is a very hefty document. We had a huge amount of input from the officials and from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, from the Ministry for the Environment, from the Environmental Protection Authority, and many, many very, very good submissions on the bill from a huge number of organisations, and much of that was taken up. It was interesting that a huge number of the recommendations and the submissions came through, and if they were not taken up in their entirety, there were certainly very good sections taken out of the submissions and from the advice from officials that was taken up in the bill. As a result of that, and also as a result of discussions with the Minister, I think the result is pretty good. It is not 100 percent, but, like anything, it is pretty well as good as we can get in the circumstances, and it will certainly go a long way to providing what is required for such an important resource that this country has.

As part of the whole economic development drive that we are all striving to get for this country to create more employment, more jobs, more opportunities—and particularly more opportunities for the next generation coming through—this serves a purpose in terms of laying a framework that will help the development of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. It will ensure that there is future prosperity for this country in many respects, because of the large numbers of resources and opportunities that are in our marine environment going out to the continental shelf. When you think that the New Zealand land mass represents something like only 5 percent of the total area of this economic zone, we have vast amounts of resources under our oceans out there that we probably even today do not know all about, and there will need to be some form of exploration and research and scientific investigation to see what is available there.

Can I just, in closing, thank the members of the select committee. I think all the committee members had a huge amount of input on this. It was a very collegial way that we worked through it, even though there was some disagreement for a period of time on the purpose of the bill. We are very pleased that the purpose of the bill was changed somewhat in terms of the wording to get a slightly better balance, with the environment being of a higher importance than perhaps was the initial intention of the legislation. In that respect, New Zealand First put in a minority report in the first instance with our concerns about the purpose of the bill. We said that we thought that the environment could suffer if it was seen only as a balance between the environment and economic development and if the environment itself was not still uppermost in our minds, because, at the end of the day, New Zealand is very fortunate being in the South Pacific where we are. We have this pristine, large part of the South Pacific on our doorstep. It is so important for our tourism and it is so important for our pure image around the world, and so whatever economic development goes on, whatever exploration, and whatever taking of resources goes on within that economic zone, we must always be mindful—and every New Zealander and everyone in this country must be mindful—that we are guardians of such an important marine environment, which is so important for our tourism, so important for our image, so important for the place where our people and our nation live, so important to Māori, and so important to so many parts of our community.

If we get this right, and if it works out as we expect it will from this bill, we would expect that there are great opportunities in the future. New Zealand will be much better for it and, as a result, all our people in this country will be better for it. So New Zealand First is very happy to support this bill, and we commend it to the House.

I am very pleased to be speaking at the third reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I am very pleased because I think that this bill is an example whereby not only have members of the Local Government and Environment Committee worked very hard but also we have seen changes both throughout the select committee process and that have come from the Minister for the Environment that, I think, are going to ensure that we get good environmental protection in the exclusive economic zone. We are also able to look at those economic opportunities and lift the standard of living for New Zealanders.

I want to just cover off a couple of things from an overall perspective as to how this fits into National’s environmental reform package. If we look at what we have done in terms of the Resource Management Act reform, we have passed over 150 amendments of the Resource Management Act in our first phase. That is the biggest reform since 1991. The purpose of those amendments was to reduce delays, uncertainties, and costs, improve plan development and resource consent processes, and strengthen compliance by providing a wider range of enforcement provisions, and we have actually seen some real progress there. In my electorate, Auckland Central, I have had many constituents who have actually physically come to me and said: “Look, we think you have got the balance right. We think we are getting quicker decisions, and we think we’re getting them at a reduced cost.” If we look at the issues around, for instance, fresh water, we have invested significantly in cleaning up some of our most polluted rivers. Also, in the area of oceans reform, we have progressed nine marine reserves—well, we have announced nine marine reserves. That will increase the area of marine reserves in New Zealand by 36 percent.

But the area that I think everyone is aware of and has been aware of for a long period of time, where there has been a gap, has been further reform in terms of our oceans. That is what this bill is about. This bill is about ensuring that we address that regulatory gap that currently exists in terms of managing our environmental effects from offshore activities. I think the point has been made by a number of speakers that currently there is a gap, and I believe that from 1998 there were 46 wells that have been drilled without having an effective management regime. So what this bill does is provide a strong framework focused on four things to assess and manage adverse environmental effects in our oceans, and also to provide greater certainty to investors and existing interests. If you listened to the Hon Nick Smith’s speech, I think he talked very eloquently about the issue of rights of appeal and what that would actually do in terms of the process—the added time and delays in terms of process. The bill also does meet New Zealand’s international obligations. There has been a huge debate in terms of that at the select committee and throughout the speeches in the House as well. We are confident—and we have had a range of advice on that—that it does meet New Zealand’s obligations.

But I think what has also been important is that there was some criticism after the select committee process, and we have seen the Minister move, via Supplementary Order Paper 100, to significantly improve the legislation. I want to touch on those issues. I do acknowledge that there have been a number of organisations, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, that have commented on these areas. I just want to touch on those key areas now. There was a concern by some members around the purpose definition. We have moved and changed the purpose definition to focus on sustainable management. That brings it in line with the Resource Management Act. There was significant concern from some members in terms of penalties, and we have also moved to increase the maximum penalty from $600,000 to $10 million. I think that sends a very strong message regarding how New Zealand values our oceans. We have clarified the transition period. We have also provided a statutory time frame of about 6 months for marine consent processes. So from my perspective—and we saw, as well, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment coming out very clearly to say that she supports this bill and that she wants it passed—we have made significant improvements not just through the select committee process but also post the select committee process.

I feel that we are in a position with this legislation—and I acknowledge the support of some parties in this House; I believe, New Zealand First and the Māori Party—to say that not only is the definition focused on sustainable management, which is more in line with the Resource Management Act, and not only have we sent some very clear messages around penalties but also we have clarified things like transitional provisions. When you actually look at some of those enforcement provisions, particularly around the powers of enforcement officers, I think we have got that balance right. That is why it has been personally a little bit disappointing that Labour and the Greens could not support this bill, because we know that, currently, there is no environmental protection regime.

Also, the final couple of points that I would make are that we do have a strong obligation in this country to have sound environmental policies, and with the largest exclusive economic zone in the world, this legislation is incredibly important for our country. From my perspective, I think that too often, sometimes, our environmental debates are at the extremes. You know, you have those people who are absolutely focused on the economy; you have other people who may be very emotional from the environmental perspective. If we look to the future, I do believe in the Bluegreens principles in terms of having a very scientific and evidence-based approach, but also having an approach that is about good risk management. I think the Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled by the Minister has significantly improved this legislation, as has the select committee process. I am very pleased to be supporting this legislation to the House. This is part of what needs to be significant reform in terms of our oceans. I am very pleased to support this bill to the House.

It is with some disappointment, actually, that I join my colleagues in the Labour and Green parties to oppose the progress of this legislation, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, because it is certainly an area where strong legislative protection was needed, and this bill tragically fails, despite huge efforts from various parties around the House and from those with expertise in this area from outside our Parliament who have really, really tried hard.

I am disappointed that the Minister for the Environment failed to take the opportunity of being a new Minister in this portfolio. She is not a brand new Minister—she has been a Minister for a little while—but in this environmental portfolio she was very new, and, in fact, inherited this legislation. She therefore had a huge opportunity to say: “Well, I’m new in this job.” She could take a step back, have a look, see what the submissions on this bill have said, see what the other parties are saying, see what the experts from around New Zealand and internationally are saying, see what our international commitments are and how this legislation fits, and then say: “Well, we haven’t quite got it right, and there are a few amendments that could be made.”

That would actually have resulted in the whole of Parliament supporting this legislation, which I think not only would have been a good thing for the process and the outcome of the legislation itself, but would have sent a very strong message from the New Zealand Parliament about the way we consider our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf should be treated. But, no, the Minister, unfortunately—and I do not understand why she did this, because it does not seem to me to be her normal approach—just really refused to engage in constructive engagement on the flaws in this debate and instead bowled ahead with it. So on that basis, and, as I say, with some disappointment, I will be voting against this legislation along with my Labour colleagues and, I know, the Green Party as well.

We opposed this legislation at the first reading, and that was quite a big debate we had. Some of us held out great hope that there would be enough changes made at the Local Government and Environment Committee and through the Committee of the whole House on this legislation that we would be in a position to support it. But actually, in the end, those who said it was so fundamentally flawed when it was first brought before the House have been proven to be right. It is a missed opportunity, and with something as important as this it is really a puzzle. I know it is a puzzle to the submitters on this legislation. It is a puzzle as to why Ministers do not take the opportunity not just to get legislation right but also to make themselves look better than they actually may appear. If they have not taken that opportunity, I frankly do not understand it.

We agree that a strong legislative framework is needed to regulate and manage the activities that are undertaken in the exclusive economic zone and in the continental shelf. This bill does not provide adequate protection for the environment. We heard during the first stages of this bill this tedious mantra from the Government—which I hope has been changed now with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper—about having to balance protection of the environment with economic development. Well, sometimes you have got to do a little more than that. Sometimes you have to have a principled approach. You have to say that some things are so important that despite being able to make money, despite being able to benefit economically—usually for a small number of people—and even despite quite a big opportunity for economic development, the destruction of our conservation or our environment is so important that we will forgo that opportunity. There is no such thing as balance if you are talking about destruction.

I was delighted to see that tired, oft-repeated mantra being put to bed by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100. She has taken a slightly more tentative step forward than she may have, but at least a step forward, in saying there may be some environmental bottom lines that we think are beyond the balancing approach. I want to commend her for that. But when this bill was first introduced, that was all we heard—that we could not have environmental protection as the fundamental frame for this bill. In fact, it did not have environmental protection—really obvious—as an outcome that was desired, let alone required as part of the legislation. So if you are talking about fundamental flaws, that had to be one. If the bill’s aim is to have environmental protection for the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, but that is not the purpose and the outcome required of the legislation, one would assume a slightly fundamental flaw.

What is the reason that we were so supportive of this regulatory framework? Well, it is really obvious: there is an increasing interest in oil and gas exploration in New Zealand, and the most important thing, therefore, is to have a really robust framework, one that has been well considered, one that has the different perspectives put into it, and one that says that our environmental protection is fundamental and we do not want to put it at risk. There are some types of exploration that we would warmly welcome. There are many parts of New Zealand we would warmly welcome it in. But without that framework of protection, one that the industry is really clear about, and one that the enforcers of the legislation are really clear about, then we are doomed to disaster. We have already had enough near risks and near misses in New Zealand. We have seen some devastating outcomes from incidents overseas where they have not had that strong framework—and not just a framework, but an understanding of the framework and enforcement of the framework. So that is a very good reason why we needed this legislative framework, because we know that there is an increasing interest in both oil exploration and gas exploration in New Zealand.

It is not just the industry and the enforcers who need that framework. In my view, every single member of the public of New Zealand, our citizens, needs to have the confidence that if applications are put in for this sort of exploration, we have the robust framework for consideration of those applications, and then if something goes wrong, we have clear liabilities, and we have clear responses to deal with any incidents that happen.

It seemed to me that this Government, quite sadly, demonstrated once again that it knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. That is really quite in opposition to the way that most New Zealanders feel about the parts of our country that are most special to us, the parts of our land and of our sea that are most special to us—let alone the potential damage that can be done to one of our major industries, and that is the fishing industry. It did not seem to have any weight to bear on the consideration when this bill was first drafted.

As I mentioned earlier, we had hoped that the Minister would be open to working constructively with us on this legislation and making amendments that would provide the robust framework that I mentioned we need so desperately, and I am really disappointed that she is not. I hope that as she gains confidence in her environmental portfolio she will have the ability to stretch across the political divide and work with members of other parties, because, actually, all of us have constructive ideas. We do not always agree with each other—that is fairly obvious, otherwise we would all be in one great middle-of-the-road political party—but we do have constructive ideas to offer, and when that is done with an agreed outcome, I think that it would be better for this Parliament if the Minister would engage with us in the future.

We lodged six Supplementary Order Papers, and I want to commend my colleagues who did that. Every single one of those six Supplementary Order Papers was voted down by the Government. We put the preservation of the environment as the principal obligation in this legislation. How could you vote against that? We made sure that there would be no doubt that the legislation would comply with our international obligations. We ensured that the cautious approach that is advocated in this bill would be replaced with the widely recognised precautionary approach. There does not seem to be anything in those Supplementary Order Papers that a thinking person could vote against, and yet every single member of the Government voted against our six Supplementary Order Papers. Had those Supplementary Order Papers, and the other amendments the Minister has proposed, all been included, we may have been able to rethink our position and support the bill. That would have been my preference. So again I say it is with great disappointment that the Minister and this bill have fallen well short of the mark, and I will be voting against it.

I rise with great joy to speak to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill in its third reading. Unlike the rambling excuse for a speech by the previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, which was sad, bewildered, like Eeyore—you know, truly the previous speaker typifies the tired, old, failed Labour policies of old. There was that element of condescension, that do-nothing attitude, the sanctimoniousness, the silly braying when Labour members cannot think of anything clever or of substance to say. This is something that we have got used to, but I would have to say that so principled is the last speaker as part of the failed Labour regime for 9 years—plus, plus, plus—that Labour members do nothing; they do nothing when the environment is at risk. They do nothing but sit on their principles, keep themselves warm with their disappointed condescension, and think they have the moral high ground. They are, in fact, doomed to the Opposition benches for a long while to come because New Zealanders are not as silly as they are.

This bill is, as others have said before me, an essential piece of legislation. It corrects the omissions, the void, left by Labour. There were something like 16, I think it was, licences granted with no regulation around them. We feel that this is a very important piece of legislation, and it needs to come into effect without any further delay. I completely disagree with our political opponents politicking around this. As far as our international obligations are concerned, we have honoured them, and many people agree with us. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is certainly something we have taken into great account in putting together this piece of legislation and right through the select committee process. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade agrees with us, our advisers agree with us, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment also agrees that this is something that is favourable and protects our environment adequately. Who are the odd ones out? Labour, indeed, and the Greens, of course, as well—the unholy coalition that may well doom us to terrible economic woe if they ever do get the Treasury benches, but it is unlikely because, as I have said, I feel that New Zealanders are an intelligent lot who are not likely to make those sorts of mistakes again.

I am on the Local Government and Environment Committee, which has heard all the submissions. I personally would like to thank the people who came to us and made submissions. I think many of them clarified some of the murkier areas around this vital piece of legislation. Their contribution was well-thought-through and very acceptable to us. I think the challenging, robust debates that occurred within the select committee itself were useful, and I commend the Minister for the Environment for listening carefully to the people on the opposing sides, for consulting with them individually, for listening to their concerns, and for coming up with a Supplementary Order Paper that has strengthened this legislation. So unlike the naysayers on the other side I am very much of the view that the robust process has resulted in an excellent piece of legislation.

As the Minister outlined earlier, the purpose has been clarified. It is aligning the purpose of the exclusive economic zone with the Resource Management Act a little more than it was, and that is an acknowledgment of some of those concerns. The penalties have been strengthened as well, going up from $600,000 to $10 million—so you follow the rules or you reap some very serious consequences indeed. There is also certainty provided for investors, and workable constraints for the industry. Sustainable management and balance were very important considerations in weighing up what would make this a good piece of legislation. Minister Adams, a lawyer herself, did not want to see extensive litigation around this, and I think that she and the select committee have actually arrived at a piece of legislation that will serve New Zealand well.

Also, the transition process has been very well-thought-through. For me it is a vital thing, representing, as I do, the North Shore, which is bounded on three sides by water. We feel very strongly that the Hauraki marine gulf needs to be protected. All of our coastal waters need to be protected, but we also need to be able to unlock the enormous potential of our oil and mineral reserves, if they are there, and if we need them. The importance, of course, is in protecting the environment, and that is what we will do, because we are committed to it. We are not just going to sit on our principles and let the whole thing slide, as Labour did for so many years. We are absolutely of the view that this is a good piece of legislation and must be passed.

I conclude with a reminder of why it should be supported. This is a bill that provides a strong and effective framework to ensure that there are processes in place that will enable us to assess and, very important, manage adverse environmental effects in our oceans. It will also provide much greater certainty to the investors and to existing interests. It will meet our obligations, as I have said, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and it will do things in the most efficient and effective way possible, and, I hope, without further delay. If our political opponents, Labour and the Greens, really did want to protect our environment, they would support this bill. I support it unreservedly. I feel it is fit for purpose, and I commend it to the House.

Just before I call the member, this is a split call, is it?

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Yes, it is

Thank you.

Kia ora. I am pleased to make a short contribution at this third reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. This is critically important legislation. I do commend the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, for the improvements that have been made to the bill through the Committee stage and also the work that was carried out in the select committee. But, alas, this has not progressed the legislation to the point where we can support it. There are still too many loopholes and too many uncertain areas in the bill. So, alas, we will be opposing this bill.

I just wanted to pick up on some key areas where there are very clear deficiencies in the bill. Firstly, around the whole consultation issue—and I am focusing on the Māori issues—there was no consultation with iwi in the preparation of this bill. There were many, many submissions from iwi and other interested Māori organisations opposing various aspects of the bill, such as the purpose clause and throughout the various processes and procedures that were flowing through the consent processes under the bill. Disappointingly, none of those submissions were actually picked up or incorporated into the bill. I speak to points like the Supplementary Order Paper from Ms Sage that included cultural impact assessments, which was one thing that Ngāi Tahu pushed for in their submissions.

Likewise, and most important, was the beefing up of clause 14, the Treaty clause. We have very clear Treaty obligation clauses between the Crown and iwi Māori in the Conservation Act and the Resource Management Act, but, unfortunately, equivalent provisions are not contained in this bill. That is very disappointing. Even more disappointing is that the obligations that do include iwi or Māori interests are just mere procedural matters, which are options that can be picked up by the Environmental Protection Authority through its advisory committees but are not mandatory. Likewise, there is no inclusion of a right to consult with iwi around any of the application processes. So that is disappointing, and that is a huge deficiency in this bill.

Just the other day, I had a briefing from a mining company. To put this into context, there was a company that was wanting to mine phosphate on the Chatham Rise. I am not going to talk about the merits of their particular activities, but this particular company had a prospecting licence and it wanted to mine phosphate on the seabed floor of the Chatham Rise. I think it is important that we look at these applications on a case by case basis, because the members on the other side talk about how there will be such great economic development from extracting minerals or oil and gas and the like. But when we actually spoke to the company and asked: “What would be the employment opportunities created from your mining activity?”, it said that there would be very few. Why was that? Because it would be bringing in these big, super, 200 metre - type ships from the Netherlands, with all their expertise, to come down and blow the sea floor so that all the phosphate could be sucked up and taken up as raw material. It would be extracting raw material, and there was no commitment to actually further value-add or to any other activities there. We oppose this bill. [Bell rung] Is that the end of my time? Oh, sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is a classic example of the spin that there will be jobs created from this mining boom. This company itself said that there would be no jobs created from its activities, as all the expertise would be brought from offshore. That actually needs to be taken into account by the Environmental Protection Authority for all applicants that are going to be mining our pristine marine environment—the sea floor and the continental shelf.

There are big deficiencies in this bill. We are very disappointed that all the Supplementary Order Papers that we put up, particularly amendments to strengthen the Treaty clauses, were voted down. So, alas, we will be opposing this bill. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. The Green Party supported the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill at its first reading because we recognised the need for an effective environmental management regime for the oceans, but we voted against it at its second reading and will be voting against it today, because this bill is not adequate to do that job. Before explaining why, I would like to thank all of the submitters. There were a number of very detailed and constructive submissions that made very good suggestions as to how to amend the bill. Unfortunately, a lot of those suggestions did not get taken up. We would also like to thank the officials from the Ministry for the Environment and the officials of the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Our reliance on dirty fossil fuels is the major contributor to human-induced climate change, and we must accelerate our move away from our dependence on fossil fuels. Yet this bill does nothing to address climate change, and, in fact, provides a key platform for this Government’s “fossil fool” agenda to open up the exclusive economic zone to oil exploration. As Greenpeace said recently: “New Zealand is missing the opportunity to share in the economic and jobs bonanza created by clean energy due to the Government passing laws to promote its fossil fuel agenda at the expense of clean energy”. This is one of those laws. The Government blocked the Green Party Supplementary Order Paper that would have allowed the Minister, in making regulations, and the Environmental Protection Authority, when deciding on marine consent applications, to take into account how an activity contributed to climate change. It is entirely appropriate for a national-level body such as the Environmental Protection Authority to consider how the quest for extreme oil such as deep-water oil contributes to and exacerbates climate change.

We oppose this bill because it takes insufficient account of our responsibility under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to preserve and protect the marine environment. That is because the suite of matters in clauses 33 and 59 do not give priority to the preservation and protection of the marine environment as the convention requires. Certainly, decision makers under both of those clauses are required to take into account the importance of protecting biological diversity and the integrity of marine ecosystems, but the Minister and the Environmental Protection Authority must give exactly the same weight to these as they give to the economic benefits of activities that are applying for consent. It is that fact, that there is no priority given to environmental matters, that means that the bill fails to implement the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It would have been very easy to amend the bill so that it was much more consistent with those international responsibilities.

We oppose it because of the very generous provision in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100, the “Anadarko amendment”, that potentially allows a company that is planning exploration activities in the exclusive economic zone to do this without getting a marine consent.

💬 Jacqui Dean: They do it now.

Yes, they do do it at the moment. This bill is designed to set in place a consenting regime, but the new transitional provisions, which extend the transitional period from 1 May 2013, as it was in the original bill, to 1 May 2014, give companies like the Texan giant Anadarko and the Austrian oil giant OMV, if they have an allocation permit, the right to actually go ahead with their oil exploration without getting a marine consent under this legislation. What is the point of the legislation if we have got such generous transitional provisions?

It is also inadequate because although the original purpose clause of balancing has been improved by the Minister—and we commend that—to one of sustainable management, under the purpose clause, clause 6, on its own, unlike the Resource Management Act and section 104, decision makers do not have to make their decision subject to the purpose of sustainable management. So it is completely different from the Resource Management Act.

The bill has got very limited provisions around implementing the Crown’s Treaty responsibilities, as Rino Tirikatene noted, and there is no general obligation to implement and give effect to the Treaty. There were a number of constructive suggestions made by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and others to provide for a cultural impact assessment. Those suggestions were not taken on board by the Government, because it blocked the Green Supplementary Order Papers.

One of the other reasons is the way in which the Environment Court is sidelined. It has made a very valuable contribution to the development of case law and policy under the Resource Management Act, and there is no opportunity for that here.

I want to start my contribution to the third reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill by just reminding the House of the press release put out by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment a couple of weeks ago, where Dr Wright says that she is satisfied that the legislation will provide significant protection to New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. She said: “I’m largely satisfied that this legislation now provides environmental protection to our oceans. … I would welcome this much needed legislation passing into law—it’s been a long time coming.”

💬 Maggie Barry: Table it.

I seek leave to table this press release by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, where she congratulates the Government on listening—[Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

—and congratulates the Government on its good legislation.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not need assistance from the members who were calling out. We do not table press releases.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I have it in my hand, and I have it available for any members of the House opposite who would care to have a look at the parliamentary commissioner’s view, which is a view that I value. In fact, I have a colleague who would like to have it now. She is going to read it quietly to herself and pass it amongst her colleagues.

Jan Wright is absolutely right. The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is a good bill. It fills a regulatory gap that currently exists in managing the environmental effects of such activities as offshore mining, petroleum exploration, cable laying, and also things like scientific research in the area 12 to 200 miles offshore. Finally we have a Government that is willing to address the regulatory gap, the legislative gap, that was left behind after the 9 years that the Labour-Green Government failed to even consider it—along with a lot of other things it failed to consider, like water. This Government is not afraid to deal with the hard issues. Today we have brought to the House a bill that not only is widely supported in the community but has been given approval by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, whose opinion I do value.

This bill is not about pitting the economy against the environment; it is about responsible management of our oceans. In clause 11, the bill gives effect to our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to manage and protect the natural resources we have in the exclusive economic zone. It is worth noting also that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides coastal States like New Zealand with exclusive rights over all resources in the exclusive economic zone, while preserving pre-existing navigational rights—and that means peaceful passage—and other rights in these areas. So the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is quite a wide agreement that we are giving effect to in this bill.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea sets rules for activities like the conduct of scientific research, and it also gives effect to duties regarding the management and conservation of fisheries and the protection of the marine environment. The Environmental Protection Authority will be the decision maker for all consents, and all consent applications will be decided by that body within a statutory time frame of 6 months for the marine consent process. It was interesting that the previous but one speaker, Rino Tirikatene, from the Labour benches, thinks it is good to look at these applications on a case by case basis. Well, yes, it is. The good news for that member is that the Environmental Protection Authority is the body that will be considering those applications.

Although the bill sets up the general framework for the regulatory system, specific controls and standards will be set out in subsequent regulation. There will be a transitional period enabling planned activities to proceed in the 2013-14 season. Regional councils will still be responsible under the Resource Management Act for regional coastal plans and consenting activities for up to 12 nautical miles offshore.

The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill does not intend—never did intend—to be the Resource Management Act of the seas. The Resource Management Act was designed for predominantly land-based activities. Although this bill has adopted a similar purpose clause to that of the Resource Management Act—thanks to a good Minister who was prepared to listen to submissions—there are several reasons for a slightly different legislative approach. First of all, the definition of “environment” is narrower in the bill than it is in the Resource Management Act. The Resource Management Act refers to physical resources like buildings and roads, and also refers to people, communities, and things like amenity values and social conditions. The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill definition of “environment” refers only to the marine natural environment, including its ecosystems. There is a fundamental difference on that, which seems to have escaped the Labour members.

Secondly, there are our international obligations, particularly those under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea grants New Zealand limited sovereign rights and sets limits on what the Crown can regulate. For example, the Crown has very limited abilities to interfere in marine scientific research carried out by foreign-flag ships. Clearly, the Resource Management Act has not got sovereignty over this part of it, so the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill has to provide for these activities to be permitted in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Because the rules are set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the use of the Resource Management Act framework is clearly inappropriate in these activities.

The exclusive economic zone area of ocean is 20 times New Zealand’s land area and offers us significant economic opportunities, but we must also ensure that we have robust laws in place to protect the environment. The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill does just that, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.