Mackey Moana: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10259. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour): By “our spokesperson” clearly you mean Parliament’s spokesperson. It is a role that I am very humbled to hold. Part 2 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill is where many of the substantive amendments are being made. This is the part of the bill that extends the Government’s anti-democratic and Draconian protest ban which it passed into law a mere few weeks ago and here we are not 2 months later extending it even further than the original bill suggested.The original Crown Minerals Amendment Bill which was passed a mere few weeks ago had the definition of offshore area as “any area within the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone that is on or above the continental shelf”. What that means is that wherever the continental shelf exists the area of the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone that sits above that is where this new Draconian anti-protest law applies. The change that is being made under clause 14 of Part 2 is that that is being amended so that the definition of offshore area now means “any area that is—(a) within the territorial sea; or (b) within the exclusive economic zone; or (c) on or above thecontinental shelf.” What we are seeing is a rapid expansion of this utterly utterly repugnant law out into the high seas and right up to the beaches. So between the beaches of New Zealand and the high seas—where we do not actually have the ability to pass laws but we are doing it anyway—we will see a ban on protest vessels protesting against deep-sea oil and gas exploration.The Minister in the chair the Minister of Energy and Resources has never answered this question. He has been sitting there like a dried arrangement all night so I would welcome him getting on his pins and actually taking a call. He never answered this question during the Committee stage of the last bill when the original ban was passed so maybe he is prepared to answer it tonight. If it is about safety then why did he simply not introduce a bill that extends the Maritime Transport Act and the Crimes Act which deal with dangerous and reckless behaviour by vessels in our territorial waters into the exclusive economic zone? Why did he not do it like that? At the moment anyone who behaves in a dangerous or reckless manner in our territorial waters is committing an offence and it is quite appropriate that that offence be extended to the exclusive economic zone. So why Minister have you not done that? Why is it that instead of saying that anyone who behaves in a dangerous or reckless manner deserves to be held to account for that you have said that it is only protest vessels and it is only protest vessels that are protesting against oil and gas exploration? I welcome an answer to that question Minister. I believe the fact that you cannot answer the question shows that you have no answer for it. There is no legitimate reason why one would not extend the existing law out into the exclusive economic zone.So here we have a ridiculous law—and I am glad the Attorney-General has come down to the Chamber. He came down to the Chamber when we passed the original bill and tried to pretend that he had a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act opinion which it turned out he did not have. When we asked him to table it it turned out it was just his opinion and it was not a particularly good one. I am disappointed the Hon Tim Groser is not still here—a man with an international reputation a man who knows about international law. I mean it would be good if Chris Finlayson could take a call. He is kind of the poor man’s Tim Groser but he is the Attorney-General and we would welcome hearing whether he has an actual legal opinion on this because the issue that we have Mr Attorney-General—who is meant to be the protector of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in this country—is that there has been no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. We have had no legal opinion on whether this complies with international law and there is no regulatory impact statement so how is Parliament supposed to be able to make a considered decision on whether or not this is good lawmaking?I will point out a particular issue. According the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade we do not have the right to make laws in the waters above the continental shelf. That is the high seas. The ministry actually specifically says—and it refers to an example—that we do not have the right to make laws that regulate shipping activities. Well what is a protest vessel protesting in the high seas if it is not a shipping activity? The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website clearly states that we do not have the jurisdiction in this Parliament to pass those kinds of laws in the waters above the continental shelf. So I would like to hear an answer to that from the Minister in the chair and from the Attorney-General as to how come the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is saying one thing which is that we have do not have the right to make laws in this area and the Minister is telling us another thing.He is passing a law that opens us up to potential legal challenges. It actually makes us look like idiots if we think that we are passing—well the Minister in the chair is shaking his head. Get up and take a call for once. That is what we pay you the big bucks for Minister—get up and take a call. People deserve to have an answer to thosequestions and if the Minister does not want to answer them that is because he does not have the answers and that is because he does not know what he is doing. We know that; it is because of his incompetence that we have to pass this bill in the first place. The previous bill has not even come into force yet and we are already having to fix it. That is extraordinary. But the Minister needs to answer the questions that he refused to answer on the original bill and that he has not answered on clause 14 of this piece of legislation.I have two amendments in my name on this part. One is to delete clause 14 because I do not believe that we should be extending what is a rotten repugnant law out into the high seas where we actually do not have the jurisdiction to do it or right into the beaches of New Zealand just because the Minister does not like the fact that a large number of New Zealanders disagree with the way his Government has handled the very sensitive issue of deep-sea drilling. Let us be clear. It is this Government’s handling of this issue that is the problem. It is because it has not listened to communities it is because it has watered down legislation and it is because it does not front up in those communities to answer questions about why communities are having this foisted upon them when they feel nervous about it and when they do not understand it. That is why there is so much concern. That is why people are taking to protest. It is because the Government will not listen to them. The Government will not talk to them and the Government will not answer their questions.That is why we are seeing clause 14 of this bill coming into force which is saying: “You don’t like it? You’re protesting? Well we’re just going to legislate away your right to do that.” That is utterly appalling—utterly appalling—and National should hang its head in shame particularly the Attorney-General who is meant to be the protector of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in this country. What a joke. What a joke. How can he even sit in this Chamber when such a repugnant piece of legislation that is so contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is going through?Chris Auchinvole: Oh don’t you love the virtue of it all.Hon Christopher Finlayson: The venom.MOANA MACKEY: Venom? Oh hello! Wafer-thin ice Mr Finlayson—wafer-thin ice. Wow. Anyway the second amendment in my name is actually to amend clause 14 so that the definition of “offshore area” is simply limited to within the territorial seas so to reduce that area down there as well. Although I hope the amendments are passed the reality is that neither of them actually fixes the basic problem which is that we need to get rid of the section that is in the original legislation.What happens now—and again the Attorney-General might have an opinion on this; the Minister in the chair is pretending to read something so he is not listening. But another question is that we now have two separate offence regimes penalty regimes in our territorial waters. We now have two different regimes one under the Maritime Transport Act and the Crimes Act and one under this section amended in clause 14. So which one are the police going to apply when someone makes a complaint or says that someone is breaking the law in terms of this right to protest? We now have two offence regimes in our territorial waters. Which one applies Minister? Minister? Hello? There is only so long you can ignore me for. We are not going away Minister. Which one applies? We now have the ridiculous position of having two completely different penalty and offence regimes in the same area of water. Why is that? Which one are the police supposed to apply? Do they just get to pick? Do we flip a coin? Is it a lottery? Is there some kind of algorithm the Minister has that can—Grant Robertson: Skycity.MOANA MACKEY: Skycity can sort it out. That is it. It is probably part of its deal. But how are we meant to know? How are the people who are operating meant to knowwhich penalty regime is going to apply? Did the Minister even know that this was going to result in two completely separate offence and penalty regimes in the same part of the ocean? No he did not. And we will be back here in another few weeks passing another amendment bill to the “Crown Minerals Amendment Bill Amendment Act Amendment Bill Amendment Bill” because the Minister has not done the work and the Minister does not know the detail of this bill that we are passing and that is why this should have gone to a select committee. Those are my questions to the Minister.