Chauvel Charles: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3689. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to congratulate the member who has just resumed her seat Eugenie Sage on her contribution and to thank her for setting out so lucidly the case for opposition to this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I am pleased that the Green Party has decided to join Labour in voting against the bill because Labour members opposed this legislation from the start for the reasons by and large that Eugenie Sage has just set out.  
There are six reasons why this bill should not proceed. The first is the point that has been made about its inconsistency with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The entire purpose of this legislation is expressly to achieve a “balance” between the environmental and the economic. Well that is not the regime we signed up to when we became party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That is an inconsistent way in which to deal with those obligations where the right to exploit resources is accompanied by a very strong duty in international law to protect and preserve the marine environment and that will not be possible if this legislation becomes law in its current terms.  
 The second reason that this bill is opposed by my colleagues and me is that it creates a regime that is substantially weaker than that contained in the Resource Management Act. There should be consistency between those two regimes. The difference between regulating the marine environment and regulating the environment on land is simply jurisdictional; it is not substantive. Local and regional authorities have already got years and years of experience and case law in terms of managing the activities that are within their purview including oil and gas exploration in our territorial waters under the Resource Management Act. In fact my colleagues tell me that some industry submitters the select committee heard from actually supported a closer alignment between this regime and the Resource Management Act regime on the basis that business would then at least have some certainty—they would understand what rules and standards were going to be required of them. But instead we have an entirely new regime that lawyers and judges are going to be arguing about for years—business is going to pay for that—and that uncertainty comes from the fact that the Government has decided to legislate inconsistently with our obligations. The difference will also likely lead to litigation over the years so there is not just a cost and an uncertainty issue; there is the transactional waste that all that activity represents.  
The third reason that we oppose the bill is that the process for issuing marine consents under it needs to be much more transparent than it would be if the bill passes in its current form. We are concerned that there are significantly more restrictions and barriers for submitters than there are for applicants. That is not fair it is not right and it is actually not healthy in terms of the sort of final outcome that would be desirable. The bill’s blocking appeals to the Environment Court is a major issue as far as access to justice and transparency are concerned.  
The fourth reason that Labour opposes the bill is that iwi were not consulted in the drafting of this legislation and that became quite apparent at the select committee. I heard some extraordinary stories about exchanges between iwi leaders and the committee and the committee chair. We are concerned that the involvement of iwi throughout the process outlined in this bill is only optional and at the discretion of the Environmental Protection Authority.  
The submission that was made during the select committee process that the bill should be amended to include reference to Maori and Moriori and tikanga Maori and tikane Moriori throughout the bill is absolutely right. We objected to the limited Treaty clause clause 14. It does not impose a general obligation on the Crown to give effect to the principles of the Treaty. 
Finally we are very concerned that the provisions covering penalties and cost recovery for breach of the Act are completely inadequate.  
Eugenie Sage and the Hon Ruth Dyson referred to an open letter to Amy Adams from the Environmental Defence Society the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand and the Ecologic Foundation. It is an open letter to the Minister. It is a very very important letter and it is worth a read. I hope that all members particularly members opposite will have a look at that open letter. With that I conclude my contribution but I do by way of point of order seek to table the letter that has been sent to the Minister on an open basis.