Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I move, That the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill was introduced to the House on 20 August 2009. The bill implements a liability framework for environmental emergencies that occur in the Antarctic Treaty area. This framework is set forth in annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which was adopted in 2005 following 13 years of negotiations.

Antarctica faces some serious challenges. There is a trend of increased human activity in the area, both governmental and non-governmental. The risks of detrimental environmental impact caused by this human activity in Antarctica have increased. Over recent years we have witnessed several incidents involving vessels in the Antarctic Treaty area. In the Ross Sea region alone, three vessels have sunk over the last two summer seasons.

Under the bill, vessel operators, not including fishing vessels, pursuing activities in this fragile part of the world will be held accountable for their actions that give rise to environmental emergencies, incentivised to improve their operating standards, and required to take appropriate preventative measures.

Under the bill, any New Zealand operator whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency in the Antarctic Treaty area will be required to notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of that emergency, and to take prompt and effective response action to the emergency. To support and reinforce these requirements, the bill introduces new offences of failing to take appropriate action.

Where a New Zealand operator fails to take prompt and effective action in response to an emergency caused by its activities, the bill imposes liability for the costs incurred by another annex party where that party has taken action that should have been taken by the New Zealand operator. Where no other annex party has taken any action in response to an environmental emergency arising from the activities of a New Zealand operator, an order from the High Court can be sought directing the New Zealand operator to pay the cost of the response action that should have been taken into an environmental protection fund administered by the Antarctic Treaty secretariat.

Liability is strict and attaches to both State and non-State operators. As such, proof that the operator was negligent or otherwise at fault is not required. Liability is limited under the bill. The current limit set under the annex amounts to approximately US$1.5 million for environmental emergencies involving a ship of 2,000 tonnes or less, and additional liability based on an incremental scale for ships of more than 2,000 tonnes.

For environmental emergencies not involving a ship, the maximum liability is approximately US$4.5 million. Liability cannot, however, be limited where an operator commits an act with intention of causing an emergency, or with recklessness with knowledge that an emergency would probably result. The liability limits set in the annex can be amended by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, which meets once a year.

The strict liability approach is designed to incentivise operators to reduce the risk of their activities causing environmental emergencies. In this regard, the annex also obliges parties to take preventative measures to reduce the risk of environmental emergencies, to establish contingency plans for these, and to carry insurance or a financial guarantee to cover the prescribed liability limits. These requirements will be implemented through conditions or ministerial directions, which will be attached to notifications by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in respect of required environmental impact assessments.

The bill was considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which reported to the House on 26 November 2009. The committee received four written submissions on the bill and heard one oral submission. The submissions that the committee received emphasised the importance of environmental protection in the Antarctic and were broadly in support of the bill. The committee recommended unanimously that the bill be passed without amendment.

Annex VI will enter into force once it has been approved by all 28 Antarctic Treaty consultative parties, including New Zealand. The bill and the annex that it implements will play an important role in promoting and improving the operating and safety standards in Antarctica and in protecting the fragile Antarctic environment at a time when it faces increased risks from human activities.

New Zealand, an original signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, has been a leader when it comes to the protection of the Antarctic environment. We played a leading role in chairing the negotiations leading to the adoption of the liability annex in 2005. The adoption of this bill is consistent with that leadership and our longstanding support for environmental protection in Antarctica. I commend this bill to the House.

The Government certainly has not been in a hurry to pass this bill, the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. It was introduced 3¼ years ago. In fact, it went through the select committee process very rapidly indeed. It was reported back to the House in November 2009. So for over 3 years this bill has languished on the Order Paper. The Government really needs to look at how it is managing its legislative agenda, when it cannot pass legislation that sends an important signal. New Zealand is, as the Minister of Conservation claimed, seen as a leading country in terms of environmental protection in Antarctica. Every party in the House will support this piece of legislation, but for some reason it has sat on the Order Paper for 3 years, and no explanation was offered by the Minister as to why that is the case.

Labour supported the introduction of this bill, it supported its passage through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and it will be supporting the passage of the bill into law through its remaining stages today. The bill amends the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994. It does so to implement New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, Liability Arising from Environmental Emergencies. The origin of this particular protocol was back in Labour’s time in 2005, when the 28th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting adopted an annex dealing with environmental emergencies occurring in the Antarctic.

Quite a number of members of this House will have visited the Antarctic. Everyone who has been down there would have been just absolutely amazed at the pristine nature of an environment that is incredibly fragile and incredibly important to the world. And it is right that New Zealand, with its activities at Scott Base in the Ross Sea area, should be a leading country promoting the protection of the Antarctic environment.

Back in 1959 New Zealand was very proudly one of the original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty. I want to talk just a little bit about this, because it was a remarkable treaty for the time. Just think back to 1959, when the world was in the middle of the Cold War. It was at the worst stages of the antagonism between the Soviet bloc and the United States and the countries aligned to it. This treaty declared that “Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only.” That was the guiding principle of the treaty. It prohibited the establishment of military bases in the Antarctic, it prohibited the testing of weapons there, and it prohibited the dumping of any nuclear waste in the territory. It was a proud moment for the world. It showed, actually, that in the midst of the Cold War you could establish a model for international cooperation.

In 1991 there was a further major milestone achieved. It was the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty—a protocol to the treaty that was concluded in Madrid in that year. That provided for comprehensive protection of the environment in the Antarctic. It set aside the Antarctic as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. That also, building on the original 1959 treaty, was a major milestone.

The liability annex that we are debating today in the House was adopted in 2005. It sets out the rules and procedures relating to liability for damage that arises from activities taking place there. We played a leading role in the negotiation of that liability annex at the time when I was Minister of Foreign Affairs. In fact, New Zealand was the chair of the negotiations.

This bill implements the obligations that we signed up to in those negotiations. It requires operators—that is, those who are conducting or organising Antarctic activities—to take prompt, effective action when environmental emergencies arise from their activities. The New Zealand operators must notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade if they cause or if they discover an environmental emergency. If an operator fails to take prompt, effective response action, the annex party may do so, and the defaulting operator must reimburse the costs to the annex party. The High Court is empowered to order the operator to pay an amount representing the costs that were incurred. This is paid into an environmental protection fund administered by the Antarctic Treaty secretariat.

Failure to notify appropriate authorities or to take prompt and effective action has sanctions that are set out with terms of imprisonment, I think, of up to 2 years and/or a fine. I have got to say that those sanctions are not going to be the most effective deterrent. The most effective deterrent will be the reputation of the operator, because the wrath of the world will descend on anybody who desecrates an environment as important and fragile as that in Antarctica. The bill sets out situations in which an operator is exempt from liability, and it also imposes a financial limit on liability for emergencies involving a ship—that is, the equivalent of US$1.5 million, and US$4.5 million for other environmental emergencies.

This bill is a positive step, though it is not sufficient in itself to protect the pristine natural environment of Antarctica, which could be threatened, for example, by oil spills from the increasing number of tourist ships that visit the region or, indeed, from fishing vessels. We have entered into an obligation to implement the liability annex, and it is actually past time for us to finally do so. As I mentioned in introducing my comments, this bill is now 3¼ years old. It was introduced a long time ago, and it passed quickly through the select committee. Maybe the next speaker from the National Party side can explain why it has languished on the Order Paper and not progressed, because I can see no reason why that should have been the case.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: It never happened under Labour!

No, no, actually the Labour Government, as Paul Hutchison so nobly admits, was very active in passing legislation. It got legislation through, and, actually, it was the party that organised and led the negotiations for the very important annex that we are recognising today in this legislation to actually pass through.

The Antarctic environment is vulnerable and it is fragile, and it is the more so because actually there is an increasing number of visitors going to Antarctica—something in excess of 50,000 a year. That creates real threats to an environment that is as fragile as the ice sheet down there is. It is also becoming a magnet in terms of a much larger number of countries wanting to establish a permanent presence there. We should be leading by example, and the delay in passing this legislation is not leading by example. We need the treaty to be ratified by all of the consultative parties, and we should be leading the way so that this annex comes into effect as quickly as possible.

Parliament can and should remedy the long delay in passing this legislation by putting it through its remaining, second and third, readings today. I welcome the legislation, and I welcome the signal it sends that New Zealand continues to take very seriously its obligations in the Antarctic—in particular, in relation to the protection of the environment there.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill, because I, along with all New Zealanders, value our clean, green Kiwi image and believe we should do our part in being an environmentally responsible member of our region.

The last speaker might do well to reflect on who was responsible for progressing this legislation back in 2005 when, as I recall, that speaker claimed responsibility for New Zealand chairing the negotiations that led to this amendment bill. I think the foreign Minister at that point was someone called Phil Goff, and I presume that that Phil Goff had 3 years between 2005 and 2008 to secure that outcome, when he churlishly sits across the House and accuses us of sitting on our backsides. Well, look in the mirror, Mr Goff—look in the mirror—because I have sat here for the last 12 months watching members on that side of the House doing their level best to stifle democracy through filibustering, and I have watched them sit here with all sorts of social engineering legislation and other things, which they have valued as of a higher priority than this piece of legislation that we are progressing today.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Too busy stifling democracy.

Yes, Dr Hutchison. They have been too busy stifling democracy. New Zealand is a trading nation, and we depend on our relationships with other countries to lift economic performance. Global agreements such as the Antarctic Treaty are part of ensuring our presence and reputation as a responsible nation that pulls its weight globally.

As Mr Goff notes, the bill went through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee with totally unanimous agreement, and the bill was reported back with no amendments at all. I think that is a credit to ex-colleagues of mine in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who drafted this bill and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who brought it to the House. The passing of this bill, as the Minister has said, will enable New Zealand to formally approve the Antarctic liability annex, but it will not enter into force until it has been approved by all 28 treaty consultative parties, including New Zealand. We are one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed, I think, in Washington in about December 1959.

The National Government supports this bill very strongly. We support not only the fulfilment of our international obligations set up under this protocol but also the protection of the Antarctic’s unique environment. The bill is consistent with the Government’s foreign and environmental policies.

The environmental issue is extremely important. I was talking to a scientist here in Parliament late last week who was explaining to me that she had been down in the Dry Valleys, and tyre tracks were clearly visible, left by Sir Edmund Hillary in, I think, 1963. Human footprints in the Antarctic are there for the long haul. We, of course, have strong historical links with Antarctica—in exploration, in research, and in environmental protection. Scott Base has been New Zealand’s permanent base in Antarctica since 1959.

The annex is an important part of our environmental protection regime, and we strongly support it. We are a party to the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, including the treaty parties in Madrid, Spain, in 1991. This protocol provides for a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment, as well as dependent and associated ecosystems. Under the protocol, Antarctica is designated as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science.

I really support this legislation. It is an excellent piece of legislation, and it is a great pleasure seeing it go through the House this morning. Thank you.

It is interesting to follow on from Mr Hayes, who did, actually, completely fail to answer Phil Goff’s question of exactly why it is that the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill, having gone through the select committee deliberation under Mr Hayes’ excellent chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, languished on the Order Paper for another 3 years.

I note that the Order Paper currently contains 12 bills that have been sitting there for at least 2 years. It is just plain poor management. Mr Hayes tried to suggest that this is the kind of thing that might have happened under a Labour Government. That is not true. Michael Cullen worked very hard to ensure that bills made their way through in a timely manner, with the exception, I might say, of the trout bill, which did stay on the Order Paper for many years—with that exception. This National Government has shown a consistent lack of ability to make progress on legislation, and this bill is a very good example of that.

All parties in this House, I am sure, will support this bill. It has at its heart an important part to play in the goal of protecting and preserving Antarctica, its critical role in our planet, and its critical role in our part of this planet. What this bill does is ensure that where there are activities that may give rise to emergencies there is a process in place for notification of that, and that there is an appropriate response when people fail to do what they need to do in terms of both preventing emergencies and notifying about them. It is the kind of legislation that, clearly, we need to pass in this House. People listening to both the Minister of Conservation and John Hayes might get the impression that this Government has a strong and resolute commitment to New Zealand’s role in protecting and preserving the Antarctic.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Smoke and mirrors.

It is, as my colleague Kris Faafoi says, smoke and mirrors. Fundamentally, other countries in the world look towards New Zealand as a leader on the Antarctic. They do that not only because of our proximity to the Antarctic but because New Zealand has traditionally taken that leadership role. We have taken seriously our job to promote quality legislation in the environment, and to show that we have a real commitment. I have to question that level of commitment. John Hayes said that New Zealand wants to be a country that pulls its weight globally on environmental issues. Well, what is happening right now in Doha, where climate change negotiations are under way and New Zealand is day after day being pilloried for its lack of leadership?

💬 Charles Chauvel: The “Fossil Award”.

As Charles Chauvel says, I think for 3 days now that the “Fossil Award” at those negotiations has gone to New Zealand. Craig Foss puts his thumb up and says he is delighted. That is the National Party’s level of commitment to New Zealand’s international reputation, and that is—

💬 Kris Faafoi: He’ll be fossilised soon.

He is a fossil—do not worry. That is the level of commitment this Government has to international environmental issues. We now have a Government that is at these negotiations and is thumbing its nose at a future global climate change agreement, when that is what people look to New Zealand for.

Mr Hayes also said that our clean, green reputation is important. Why, then, is this Government constantly undermining that in international fora? It is not only at the climate change negotiations, where it is disgraceful that New Zealand has backed away. Mr Key said that he did not want us to be a leader in climate change. He wants us to be a fast follower. Well, now we are a disinterested bystander at these negotiations. That is not good enough.

If we come back to the Antarctic specifically, what we saw during the recent Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources negotiations was that the actions from the Government from New Zealand were, frankly, too little, too late. If we actually are going to have true commitment to the Antarctic and true commitment to protecting the environment, we needed to be much more decisive and aggressive in our commitment to ensuring that there was an agreement around the Ross Sea region.

Finally, after a significant length of time, the New Zealand Government decided that it would get alongside the US with its proposal on the marine protected area there, but it was simply too little, too late. We cannot afford, both for the health of the Antarctic and for our international reputation, to take so long to make our commitments in this area, be it in terms of the marine protected area, or be it in terms of passing legislation such as this bill. It is our obligation as a country that has such close links with the Antarctic to be at the head of the pack, not lagging behind, letting legislation sit on the Order Paper, or not proposing and actively working to find a good, constructive solution in terms of the Ross Sea region and the marine protected area there.

We know the significance of the Antarctic to New Zealand in terms of our commitment to the environment. There is also a strong commitment for us in terms of the work that is done, by New Zealand, out of Christchurch, and to ensure that we retain our reputation as a staunch defender of the Antarctic we need to do significantly better than we have in terms of the legislation that is in front of us now.

The level of commitment that New Zealand shows to the Antarctic is something that, over the years, we have been proud of, and I just caution against this Government seeing our role in the Antarctic as something that it can continue to provide a flippant kind of leadership towards. We need it to be far more decisive.

On the subject of climate change and its relationship to the Antarctic—Mr Hayes alluded to this, as well—there is nowhere on our planet where the effects of climate change are more obvious than the Antarctic. This Government’s lack of leadership on climate change, its undermining of the emissions trading scheme, and its failure to take a role at the international level that I think most New Zealanders would see as appropriate continues to undermine the health of the Antarctic, which in turn undermines the health of our planet. If the National Government cannot get its head around the importance of taking decisive action on climate change, then it cannot stand in this House and say that it has a commitment to the protection and preservation of Antarctica.

So on this side of the House we are happy to support this bill. We believe that it has been a long time coming, and we want to see more decisive action from this Government on Antarctica. I actually think there is willingness across the House to do more in terms of our relationship if the Government is prepared to take a leadership role, but having a bill like this sit on the Order Paper for 3 years is completely unacceptable, and shows a lack of commitment from this Government on those issues.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. Antarctica is a special, pristine place. The health of the world can be measured in the ice, kilometres thick, of Antarctica. It is a place that New Zealand has a special relationship to, both historically and environmentally, and as a pioneer of protecting it internationally.

Unlike some of the members who have touched on the debate who have been privileged enough to travel to Antarctica, I have not been fortunate enough to be down there, but I have seen some of the amazing cinematography in the film The Last Ocean. This is a powerful film, which I urge all members of Parliament to see, by an esteemed and now award-winning New Zealand film-maker who uses the film to argue quite coherently, quite logically, and quite passionately, for protection of a region that is of special significance to New Zealand, which is the Ross Sea. New Zealand, unfortunately, has pioneered and is leading the exploitation of the dangerous and, I believe, unscientifically based current toothfish fishery down there. I guess a special point for you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, is that I am disappointed that I have not been able to show this film to members of Parliament, despite repeated requests. Unfortunately the Green Party, along with New Zealand First and the Labour Party, has not been able to screen this film. Despite my challenge to numerous National members to join us so that we can show this film, I hope you, Mr Assistant Speaker, can allow this special film, which is a real New Zealand art work, to be shown. I think that if more of us had been able to go down there or had seen this film, we would know the importance and the challenge that we have facing us.

Antarctica, quite plainly, is under threat. It is not just climate change, which we have heard about today.

💬 Shane Ardern: Is the member going down in a sailboat?

I will respond to the interjection: I would love to go down in a sailboat. I would go down tomorrow if you would give me a berth. I would love to go down, and I think that every Kiwi should get the chance. But this is one of the problems. Now we have tens of thousands of people going down to Antarctica every year. It is not just the climate change, it is not just the fishing boats; it is those tens of thousands of tourists. What we have seen are numerous concerning incidents.

Just looking through some of the history, what we have seen in 2008 is the MV Ushuaia running aground. We have seen the Ocean Nova grounded. We have seen in the last couple of years the Jung Woo 2, the Sparta, and, tragically, the No. 1 In Sung, which lost 22 lives down there. We have seen the Japanese whaling ship the Nisshin Maru explode and catch fire, which resulted in the loss of life. We have seen the Argos Georgia drifting for 15 days when it lost power. We have seen a litany of accidents happening down there, many of them avoidable, so it is good that we are debating this legislation, which deals with some of those real, growing threats facing Antarctica and the oceans around it.

So what this bill does is implement annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. This annex was adopted in 2005. It establishes the liability regime. It has a financial limit. It requires New Zealand operators that give rise to or discover an emergency to notify the New Zealand Government, and it provides penalties and offences for failing to take prompt and effective action. We would have preferred something stronger. This is not a criticism of the previous negotiators, who we believe did do a good job, but what we do believe is that we actually do need a comprehensive liability regime. What we have seen over the course of the Rena was that New Zealand was not prepared. Our liability regime was capped under the Resource Management Act to $600,000. What we know is that the Rena has cost New Zealand taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. It is a good example of where we need to have legislative forethought to prepare for liability when we know accidents will happen.

I would like to touch on our special relationship with Antarctica. We, obviously, were the jumping-off spot for many of the discoverers. We were an original signatory back in 1959, and it is important that we do pass this legislation, because our turning this bill into an Act does help turn this annex into reality when 28 Antarctic Treaty nations all do likewise. So what we are passing today is the missing piece of the environmental Antarctica protocol, which was negotiated in 1991 and came into effect in 1998, and it is good that New Zealand is playing its role in protecting the Antarctic continent.

We share Labour’s concerns about the slow response by the Government benches, as the bill has been on the Order Paper for an awfully long time. But I guess when you are the Minister of Conservation, Kate Wilkinson, you are currently sitting on what is the second-longest bill ever to languish in a select committee—the Marine Reserves Bill, which is coming up to, I think, its decade anniversary at a select committee—and I guess if the Marine Reserves Bill is your benchmark, she is not doing too badly with this one. I guess the question the Government benches have not answered is why it has languished so long. I do not agree with Labour; I do not think it is just poor management. I think poor management of the House does play a role, but I think what we have seen in this current term of the Government is the Government take a very decidedly anti-environmental tack. It has come down very hard. We have seen it walk out of the Kyoto Protocol. We have seen it attack scientists personally. We have seen it wax lyrical about the “clean, green” brand, likening it to McDonald’s. If there is anything so fatty and sugar-coated and not what it makes out it should be, such as a McDonald’s burger, I think we are likening it to what the National Party’s vision of the “clean, green” brand is.

What we have seen is a Minister who is prepared to act as an accessory to the extinction of the Māui’s dolphin, so although John Hayes talks about our “clean, green” brand, we are running it through the dirt. We are seeing the Government take a decidedly anti-environmental turn. Those members are acting as if they were environmental vandals.

So we are happy that we are finally getting progress on it. We urge progress, likewise, on the Marine Reserves Bill. But what we think we need to do is have a discussion now about how we do make this regime more comprehensive. Just lastly, I welcome the call by the Labour benches that we should have a cross-party agreement when it comes to the protection of the Ross Sea. It was embarrassing for New Zealand to walk out of the negotiations with the United States Government on protecting the Ross Sea. It was embarrassing that we were seen to be there at the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources negotiations protecting our own narrow, small, vested fishing interests. We are talking about 0.17 percent of our fishing, and our Government was prepared to run that “clean, green” brand through the mud, but I guess the Labour member Shane Jones knows all about that.

It would be good to have cross-party support for protecting the Ross Sea. I think we have a special opportunity now that the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources has agreed to a second negotiating period next year. This is a real opportunity for New Zealand to now show some leadership. I would love to see the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, do some active lobbying around the world. We do have an opportunity. I think the world does want to see greater environmental protection in the marine reserves down there. I believe we can see it happen.

So, all in all, we welcome voting for this bill. We think that extended hours is a good use of the House’s time. Perhaps this could have been adopted earlier. We would like to go a bit stronger and we would open that discussion in the future, but it is good to be passing this legislation today. Kia ora.

Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. The bill went through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee with unanimous agreement and with no amendments, which is indeed a testament to the drafters, to the parties, to the Parliament, and to the Government.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: And then languished on the Order Paper for 3 years.

I once again hear Phil Goff, who was a Minister at the time when the protocol was settled and could have easily expedited this bill in his time—much more frequently. There is no doubt that all New Zealanders very much value our clean, green image, as Mr Hayes pointed out. I was quite surprised, if not amazed, to hear those Labour speakers, Grant Robertson and Phil Goff, talking about climate change, because, after all, it is the National Government that did initiate the global alliance, which does show true and relevant leadership in terms of climate change. This was initiated by New Zealand, and, indeed, is very, very pertinent to New Zealand and pertinent to the world, and a contribution where we can lead and we can make a great difference.

This bill deals with environmental emergencies occurring in the Antarctic. New Zealand was one of the 12 original signatories of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959. Today actually marks 53 years and 5 days since that treaty was signed. It just happens to be the day of my wife’s birthday, so happy birthday, Antonia. She, of course, is much younger and prettier than that. Under the protocol, the Antarctic is designated a natural reserve devoted to peace and science, and I do believe that that is absolutely right and proper. At Scott Base we have just seen the completion of the joint project between New Zealand and the US with the three turbines of the wind farm, which has reduced the need for diesel by the order of 11 percent, and it will continue. This is a great bill. It is highly positive and it is wonderful that the National Government and the Parliament can be rightly proud of it.

New Zealand First is also very happy indeed to support this bill, the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I note that the main provisions of it are, first of all, that it requires operators to take prompt, effective action when environmental emergencies arise from their activities, and those activities, of course, are increasing every day in that part of the world. New Zealand operators must notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade if they cause or discover an environmental emergency. If an operator fails to do so, then another annex party may do so and the New Zealand operator would then have to reimburse those costs. Where no annex party takes any such action, the High Court in New Zealand may order the operator to pay an amount representing the costs that would have been incurred had prompt and effective response action been taken. That amount, of course, is paid into the environmental protection fund administered by the Antarctic Treaty secretariat.

The bill also sets out the situations in which an operator is exempt from liability and imposes a financial limit on liability. I am pleased to see that the liability is strict and attaches to both State and non-State operators. I am pleased also to see that the bill removes the requirement for the Attorney-General to consent to civil proceedings against operators, since the bill aims to facilitate such actions and requiring the Attorney-General’s approval would be seen as a barrier. I think that those objectives are just what we should be doing in Antarctica, and I think it is a good start. Of course, a lot more needs to be done.

New Zealand has had a very long association with Antarctica. That began, of course, many years ago—over a century ago now—with the Scott and Shackleton expeditions, which were very much supported in New Zealand, and in particular where I come from in Christchurch. I remember the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year there—I was just a young child then—and being taken out to Harewood to see the Globemasters and the other aircraft that were being used in the Antarctic. New Zealanders were then, and still are, very enthusiastic about New Zealand’s involvement in the Antarctic, and seeing that it is kept as a place for peaceful activities and where the environment should be protected. New Zealand has always had a leadership role to play, and that continues today. It was one of the first signatories to the 1959 treaty, and has maintained an active presence since. New Zealand must always continue to show leadership in the Antarctic and we must always maintain our presence there at Scott Base. I think it is an investment very well made.

The issue today, of course, is the threat to the Antarctic environment from some of the activities we are seeing there. As I have said, I am therefore very pleased indeed to see New Zealand support a strict liability regime for operators in the Antarctic. That is no less than should be done, and, as I have already also said, this bill is really only a beginning. It is a very good beginning and New Zealand First is enthusiastic about supporting it, but we do think more needs to be done, especially in the supervision of activities of all parties in the Antarctic to see that its environment is maintained and protected. The same effort, of course, should really be put into the huge oceanic area in New Zealand’s economic zone, but that is another issue. For the time being, New Zealand First will be very happy indeed to support this bill, and would like to encourage further action by the Government to ensure New Zealand plays its part in the future in the protection of the Antarctic environment.

Like previous speakers I am very pleased also to be part of supporting the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. It has been interesting listening to the various speeches, particularly the Minister of Conservation’s opening comments, but it has also been particularly concerning and interesting to listen to our opponents and their contribution, and their various references to the New Zealand Government’s lack of focus in environmental issues. I guess it is one of those examples of where sometimes actions speak louder than words.

In the previous 9 years of the Labour Government we had a woeful, woeful period of environmental legislative protection. We, in fact, languished. The fable, I guess, that comes to mind is the one about the emperor who has no clothes. They talked all the time, but they actually did nothing. To suggest that in some way New Zealand is now turning its back on the environment is about as shallow and as short-sighted as it is possible to be.

There was reference, particularly by the former trade and foreign affairs Minister, to the Doha round. I look upon the Doha round currently taking place as having similarity to a bunch of drunks going off to another booze-up to talk about the effects of alcoholism. That is how I would look at some of that activity. I wonder how they get there. Do they go by sailboat? Do they ride their bikes or do they fly in jet planes? I wonder how they get there.

The only thing that New Zealand has done in recent times in terms of changes in direction is to remove agricultural admissions from the emissions trading scheme. How, by taxing methane emissions from animals, were we going to reduce our environmental impact?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We’re on the Antarctic.

That is the question and no one has been able to answer that. Mr Speaker, in talking about the passing of this bill, I have heard a wide-ranging debate and I thought that must be licence for it.

As one of my colleagues said, New Zealand is one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed on 1 December 1959 in Washington, DC and which we have since then had many other involvements in. This is yet another example of that. I suggest to our opponents over there, given that they were involved in the original negotiations—in fact, the former Minister who was involved is present in the House—that it is in fact quite unusual that we would be here today after all this time debating this bill given the time that they had to further this important piece of legislation. I am sure the bill would have been passed prior to now if it had not been, of course, for the fact that they have spent so much time filibustering on all sorts of nonsense that needed no extra time spent on it up until this point in time.

This is one of those rare occasions, of course, where Parliament is unanimous, and it is a privilege to be part of it when it is unanimous on something as important as this particular legislation. So I look forward to its passage through Parliament.

I rise to take a call on the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. The Antarctic Treaty came into force on 23 June 1961. As Phil Goff explained to the House, it was a unique piece of international law at the time, and it remains unique in the sense that it suspended claims to sovereignty over a large part of the Earth’s land surface. It committed the Antarctic region to demilitarisation and to peace.

There have been numerous subsequent agreements to which New Zealand has been a party that have furthered the aims and the scheme of the original treaty. One of the most significant of those relates to environmental protection. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty was signed in October 1991. It entered into force, because it got sufficient member State signatories, on 14 January 1998. It is one of the most significant international environment agreements that have ever been concluded. It prevents development, and it provides for the protection of the Antarctic environment through five specific annexes. They relate to marine protection, flora and fauna, environmental impact assessments, waste management, and protected areas. It prohibits all activities relating to mineral resources except for the purpose of scientific investigation.

Where this annex fits into that scheme is that it is the sixth annex to that particular agreement, and it relates, as previous speakers have said, to liability arising from environmental emergencies. It was adopted back in 2005, but it is yet to come into force because not enough nations have yet passed the necessary domestic legislation to allow for ratification.

Denis O’Rourke, I think, commented on some of the provisions of the legislation that will be necessary to bring this particular annex into force in respect of New Zealand law. The reason that the international legal regime relating to Antarctica is unique is that when we ratify a treaty in most cases there is an international legal enforcement mechanism, but none exists in respect of Antarctica. Antarctica has no permanent population. It has no enforcement system in its treaties, and, particularly when it comes to environmental protection, the States parties have to enact domestic legislation that permits their courts to provide for enforcement, because there is no international machinery. That is why this particular protocol is so significant and why I certainly welcome, along with my colleagues, the passage, finally, of this legislation through the House.

I am certainly very glad that we are getting on to implementing the liability annex, but, as Phil Goff pointed out, 3 years on the Order Paper is too long. It is a symbol, I think, of the casual way with which we are treating a very, very important environmental matter. As Grant Robertson said, other examples are the way in which we have seen our treaty obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and the second commitment period treated by this Government, along with domestic legislation on that matter.

Just as we have seen the Prime Minister admit that the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand is simply a marketing exercise as far as he is concerned, I was interested to hear Shane Ardern try to rebut our concerns about the laxness of the environmental record of this Government. He claimed that there had been 9 years of inaction when we were in office. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps Mr Ardern could explain, or perhaps one of his colleagues who is about to get to their feet could explain, why in 2008 New Zealand stood, as a result of the record of the Helen Clark - led Labour Government, at No. 1 in the Yale environmental rankings, independently put together by a leading United States university. In the 4 short years of this Government we have fallen to No. 14 in that ranking system, and it looks like we will fall further.

That is the independent evidence about this Government’s stewardship of the environment and of conservation matters. Those members should hang their heads in shame. Although I welcome, as I said, the final passage of this legislation, it has taken too long, and if this attitude to the environment continues on the part of that Government it will be a deservedly short-lived one.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the chance to rise to speak on the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I would just like to rebut my colleague Charles Chauvel. The level of deforestation under the previous Labour Government in 2007-08 was appalling. Our forests were ravaged the length of the country and only under this Government has replanting commenced apace.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee passed this bill with unanimous agreement. It has been great to see that this issue, which is so important to all of New Zealand, has received unanimous support in the House today. New Zealand has huge and strong links with Antarctica in exploration, research, and environmental protection, and we have had Scott Base, our permanent base, there since 1959.

New Zealand is one of the 12 original signatories, as we have heard, to the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in December 1959 in Washington, DC. New Zealand’s governance activities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, including the Ross Dependency, which is fact constitutionally part of New Zealand, are overseen by Antarctica New Zealand, the Crown entity that maintains New Zealand’s operational presence in research and development in the area for the benefit of present and future generations.

The record of international cooperation in Antarctica is a long and strong one, and it remains a crucial area for environmental research. It is also, as I said, an outstanding example of longstanding international cooperation. This bill implements many of New Zealand’s international treaty obligations regarding liability for environmental emergencies in Antarctica. It will also, as we have heard previous speakers mention, implement New Zealand’s obligation under an annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a 5-minute call.

I rise to take a call to support this bill, the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I am delighted to support this bill from the Parliament of “100% Pure New Zealand”, aiming at protecting the 100 percent pure Antarctic.

As my colleagues noted earlier, this bill has been languishing on the Order Paper for more than 3 years, and during those 3 years the “100% Pure New Zealand” image has been seriously undermined under this National-ACT Government. New Zealand has slipped from first to 14th on the Yale Environmental Performance Index, and for our performance trend in recent years we rank 50th, as our environment is on the decline. Simply look at our rivers. Simply look at our emissions trading scheme policy initiatives. It is not about only our “100% Pure New Zealand” clean and green image; it is also about our obligations both domestically and internationally.

The main purpose of this bill is to implement New Zealand’s international treaty obligations regarding the liability of environmental agencies in Antarctica. New Zealand is one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed on 1 December 1959 in Washington, DC. We have had a close relationship with the Antarctic. We are geographically close to the Antarctic, and since 1923 we have maintained our right of sovereignty over the Ross Dependency. New Zealand’s claim to the region was formalised in 1923 when the Governor-General of New Zealand was appointed as Governor of the Ross Dependency by an imperial Order in Council made in London in the United Kingdom.

At 14 million square kilometres, the Antarctic is the fifth largest continent in area. According to Wikipedia, there are more than 10 million penguins residing there. This is one of the reasons why this bill is important. It is also important because of the amazing environment that exists there that supports research and exploration, and, therefore, the need for environmental protection.

New Zealand first became party to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, signed by the treaty parties in Madrid, Spain, in 1991. This protocol provides for a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment, as well as dependent and associated ecosystems. Under the protocol the Antarctic is designated as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science.

A key aspect of this bill is that it requires New Zealand operators to notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade if they cause or discover an environmental emergency. The bill requires operators in the Antarctic to take prompt, effective response actions when environmental emergencies arise from their activities. If they fail to do so, they will be required to reimburse any second party that reports the emergency, or may be ordered by the High Court to pay the costs to the environmental protection fund administered by the Antarctic Treaty secretariat.

Approving the liability annex is an opportunity to highlight and promote New Zealand’s support for a strong environmental protection regime for the Antarctic, both domestically and internationally. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. As a Christchurch-based MP, I am pleased to take a short call on the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. Christchurch has very strong associations with Antarctica. It has been the gateway to Antarctic exploration from the very early days, it is the headquarters for Antarctic New Zealand, and there are a number of fascinating exhibits and artefacts from Antarctic exploration at the Canterbury Museum. Of course, vessels bound for Antarctica will often replenish their supplies in the port of Lyttelton, and the aircraft leave from Harewood.

As others have noted, the Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959, with its focus on the use of Antarctica for peaceful purposes, is a model for international cooperation. The continent is the world’s largest wilderness area, and there is certainly an international expectation that the highest standards of environmental performance should apply to all who operate there. That is why in 1991 in Madrid the treaty partners agreed to append the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty to establish a protection regime for the continent.

This agreement in 1991 included a commitment to negotiate and agree on procedures and rules for liability for any environmental damage. That was eventually negotiated and agreed in Stockholm in 2005. So this bill inserts new Part 5A into the principal Act. New Part 5A sets out the legal liability for damage to the Antarctic environment, and it implements New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. It deals specifically with liability arising from environmental emergencies. Because it applies just to emergencies, rather than establishing a comprehensive regime for environmental damage, it was not as broad as environmental groups were urging the partners to adopt. But it will be a significant improvement on the current rules for managing Antarctica.

New Zealand chaired the negotiations in Stockholm, which resulted in the liability annex. So when the bill was introduced in 2009 New Zealand was expected to be one of the first countries to formally approve the annex by adopting it into domestic law. So we share with Labour the concerns about the delay, but we still support the bill and will be pleased when it is passed.

The effects of the bill, as others have noted, will be that New Zealand operators, such as tourism operators who discover or who cause an environmental emergency, such as an oil spill, must immediately notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and then respond promptly and effectively. The bill sets out a regime for offences, and a mechanism to recover costs if the operator fails to act. And, as the Minister noted, it does cap liability for various incidents.

There were only four submissions on the bill. The Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand sought that it be extended to cover all vessels leaving New Zealand, including fishing vessels. That would have been logical, given the number of marine incidents we have seen in recent years that have raised the need for a comprehensive liability regime. That includes, of course, the Nisshin Maru, which was a whale processing ship in the Ross Sea, where an explosion caused loss of life and power in 2007. But the officials’ view and the view of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was that there was no agreement between the treaty partners on the issue of having a comprehensive liability regime, including fishing vessels, during the annex negotiations, so it could not proceed.

That highlights a major problem with the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, which are occurring this week in New Zealand. As with those negotiations, if there are any changes to domestic law, there is the potential that if those changes have not been agreed by the States parties negotiating in Auckland, then there will not be an ability to amend domestic law to provide for that. In this bill there is a lot of support for it and it is being done with a lot of transparency. But agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and their potential to override domestic law are a major problem. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading