Tirikatene Rino: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tirikatene Rino: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4655. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Chair. I am pleased to make a contribution on Part 3 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and I would like to pick up on Mr Robertson’s contribution in regard to Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Charles Chauvel in terms of clause 103. It is interesting. I have just looked at the departmental report as reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee in regard to clause 103. There were some 22 submissions covering clause 103 and all of them were universally opposed to restricting rights of appeal to the High Court and purely on points of law. So there were strong submissions being made that rights of appeal go to the Environment Court and that they follow the standard practice of appeals under the Resource Management Act which provides full rights of de novo appeals on questions of fact and law to the Environment Court. 
We had submissions from the likes of our main listed fishing company Sanford. We had submissions from Sanford and I read that there were submissions from the likes of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society—all saying the same thing. So it is disappointing then that the submissions—22 of them in total all universally saying that we need to make sure that we change these rights of appeal so we can actually go to the Environment Court and cover questions of fact and law—were not adopted. 
It seems that the departmental officials toeing the line of the Government said that there is some degree of alignment with the Resource Management Act. Because of the regime that has now been imposed in the Resource Management Act—the fact that nationally significant projects can be basically applied and ticked off very quickly by a technical committee and appeals go only to the High Court on points of law—there is some consistency with the Resource Management Act. Well that is not good enough. We know that there are a lot of concerns around activities in the exclusive economic zone and we want to make sure that there is confidence in the whole process for applicants and for those who are concerned and are opposing such applications so I do support Supplementary Order Paper 95. 
I will just go through the other clauses in Part 3 point by point. Clause 114 deals with the enforcement orders. Obviously this has had “or any other person” added before “may apply to the Environment Court for an enforcement order.” Originally it was limited to the Environmental Protection Authority and now it has been extended out to any person so we support that amendment which came through the select committee. Likewise the inclusion of abatement notices in clause 122A was an important addition; it gives another option in terms of enforcement or remedies in Part 3 of the Act. Likewise the insertion in clause 122F: it is a useful tool for the Environmental Protection Authority in dealing with urgent matters. There are little technical things around procedural aspects for abatement notices and the like which were tidied up and have been included in the bill as it has been reported back. 
I would like to move on to clause 125 which we have been talking about this afternoon and which deals with the penalty provisions and Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of my colleague Moana Mackey. Certainly if there are breaches of the Act or breaches of provisions in terms of clause 124 we want to make sure that there are penalties that provide a good disincentive for breaches of the Act. It is commendable that Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Minister for the Environment does include amendments that increase the penalties up to $10 million. That is commendable and we do support that. But as we go through all of the other penalties and fines throughout clause 125 we see that it is incongruent in terms of having a $6 million fine and then going down to some $10000 fines—some very petty fines which are not real deterrents. So we want to make sure that there is consistency right across those fines hence Ms Mackey’s Supplementary Order Paper 103 which basically increases all of those fines tenfold. There are tenfold increases in those fines proposed to make sure that there is a nice balance across the fines in clause 125 but also to make sure that there is sufficient disincentive for breaches of the Act by those who may want to do so in regard to their activities. 
Part 3 as a whole deals with objections appeals and enforcements but I think critically there are the two Supplementary Order Papers that deal with creating the right of appeal to the Environment Court on points of law—in fact appeals de novo—and we would ask the Government to support Supplementary Order Paper 95. Likewise Supplementary Order Paper 103 which extends increases and provides more balance and grunt to the fine provisions in clause 125. Thank you.