Delahunty Catherine: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Delahunty Catherine: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 21 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4606. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I am delighted to have an opportunity to take a call on Part 2 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I am sorry that I was not able to be at the Local Government and Environment Committee because this is a very interesting experience even now hearing the aspirations for the bill which unfortunately seem to me romantic. Basically we know less about the deep ocean than we do about Mars and the surface of the moon. We do not know at 3000 metres what is going to happen. Basically this bill although laudable because we do need legislation that regulates the marine environment is romantic. We have no ability to know whether we can sustainably manage something that we are yet to understand. Part 2 actually provides the opportunity for marine consents as if it was something just down the road as if it was a dairy farm or as if it was a block of conservation land where we are able to count species. 
Actually we know hardly anything about what happens at 3000 metres. We have some experience in the shallow water and actually off the coast of Tauranga that did not go terribly well. Having scraped a lot of oil off I know that even in the shallow water with a tiny spill it is very difficult to restore the environment. They appear to be nothing to do with it but actually when we are talking about risk management and sustainability you cannot invoke caution if you are going to ignore precaution. That is what the debate is actually about. Whether you are talking about the  
Rena 
 minor disaster or what happened in the Gulf of Mexico—best practice I do not think so. We do not know what to do about this in terms of adaptive management. Adaptive management regimes where you can adapt what you are doing because you have some control over the environment are valid. But in 3000 metres off the coast of say Whanau-a-Apanui in the deep ocean where we do not even know the species that we are potentially destroying it is gambling. Let us just admit it—it is gambling. 
I would like to move to some other points about Part 2 and support the comments of Rino Tirikatene about the issues around the Treaty. I remember vividly the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. It was never about the beach. It was about getting Crown control and the right to permit seabed—read my lips—and foreshore resources. That is what it was about. That is why Elvis Teddy got in that boat with Whanau-a-Apanui went off the coast and got arrested for whatever the court could dream up but in fact the case failed. The case failed even though the navy tried to arrest them. Part 2 is about granting consents and I am talking about the rights of people to say no the rights of people to say: “I do not want this to happen in my rohe.” That is why the history is important in respect of Part 2. This is setting up tests around possibly being cautious when in fact we already know that some communities have said no. What about the ability to contest the information? 
I just want to look at clause 60A in Part 2 where they talk about favouring caution. The reason why they have not used the precautionary principle is that it has meaning. “Favouring caution” is a wonderful new phrase. It is like a traffic light. Perhaps we had better not go for green we will just go for orange and when we like it we will go for green. That is what “favouring caution” means. The precautionary principle was discussed at Rio in relation to deep sea mining and this is what was said by Dr Helen Rosenbaum about the precautionary principle: “if there’s any uncertainty about the nature of the impacts but there is a reason to believe there are going to be serious negative impacts then projects should be delayed.” The reason this is not in the bill is because precautionary is an extremely strong test. Actually it is sometimes argued that if you do not understand what you are doing you do not do it—sorry not you Mr Chair. If people do not understand what they are doing then they do not do it whereas being cautious is open to any form of interpretation. 
I would just like to quote clause 60A(4) which says: “In this section best available information means the best information that in the particular circumstances is available without unreasonable cost effort or time.” Does that sound like the precautionary principle? No because it is not. It does not even sound like caution to me. It sounds like: “We don’t want to limit the opportunities here.” If we do not know what is under the ocean and we are not sure what impact the deep sea drilling is going to have or the seismic blasting or anything else is it going to be an unreasonable cost to find out? Is it going to be a bit of an effort or is it going to take too much time in which case we do not want to limit ourselves. [ 
Bell rung 
] I will not take my full 5 minutes but just to say briefly that if you are talking about robust legislation and what is basically an extremely unknown environment Part 2 does not meet the tests. It is very important that principles like the precautionary approach and adaptive management are actually workable. It is not workable to talk about this environment that we do not even understand and try to apply these tests which actually in the Resource Management Act need to be stronger. Many of us have struggled in respect of the Resource Management Act in our ability to participate meaningfully. 
If we are talking about the development of resources in this country we are not talking about the people of the East Coast getting a job; we are talking about Petrobras Nautilus Minerals Inc. and the other multinationals that will be fronting this week at the Pacific Islands Forum as well. Basically what they are saying is “Open slather. We want to get in there.” This bill has the opportunity to provide some prevention but I would like to also acknowledge what Rino Tirikatene said about the role of Maori and the Treaty in it. If the advisory committee which is mentioned in here in the Environmental Protection Authority is optional then how does Whanau-a-Apanui say that they do not want this? How do they say no if the advice around tangata whenua is either optional or mere advice? I do not know but I have spent far too many years of my life in the Environment Court where advice from tangata whenua has been ignored where optional information has been ignored and where the idea that someone is going to benefit and someone is going to make money means that we can enter into environments that we have no baseline data about that we do not understand and that we just hope. 
The difference between the land and the sea is that the sea looks as if it covers everything up. That is why we dump all our waste in it dump all our sewage in it and dump all our pollutants in the sea—because we cannot see it and we have got no imagination. We lose species when we do that. We lose threatened species we lose integrity of our fisheries and we lose opportunities for the future. I am very disappointed that the bill is so loose. I understand that it is improved and I am grateful it is improved but I cannot accept that sustainable management is possible or that adaptive management is possible in Part 2 if you do not even know what the environment is that you are planning to manage. Basically we are running out of oil on the planet so now we are going into the deep ocean. No one would be doing it if they could get it from somewhere else because it is too hard. This is going to be even harder. We are going to do damage and what is scary is that we can go through all the loops and processes but without any baselines we are not going to achieve sustainability or environmental protection. Thank you.