Adams Amy: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Adams Amy: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4504. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I do want to take a call just to respond to a couple of the issues that have been raised by a number of speakers around clause 11 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and the international obligations. I will certainly come to that. 
Let me just start though by pointing out to the last speaker Charles Chauvel in respect of his concerns around clause 17 that clause 17 is not in Part 1 of the bill. It sits in Part 1A which we will be debating next. So I am more than happy for him to return and make a contribution on that part and we can address that there. 
Regarding clause 11 of the bill and the wording of the international obligations it is very valid that the Committee consider this carefully because it is an important part of the bill. But I want to get a few things on record. The first of those is that simply repeating in Opposition contributions to the debate that it is not consistent does not take us any further. What I have said repeatedly is that the advice that we have from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade which is after all New Zealand’s agency that has the responsibility for understanding and monitoring our compliance with our international obligations has repeatedly made it very clear both to the Local Government and Environment Committee and to me that the bill—actually before the changes and certainly again with them—complies with our international obligations in all respects. The point that the Committee has to take into account as I have said repeatedly is that the matter has to be looked at holistically. 
The issue is that part 12 of the convention itself although an important part of the convention must be read in the context of the rest of the convention the majority of which addresses use of the oceans including exploitation of living and non-living resources marine research and navigation. In relation to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the use of the oceans particular note should be made of articles 56 and 77 which explicitly refer to a coastal State’s sovereign right to explore and exploit the natural resources in its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. 
The view goes on to express the fact that it is the obligation of States in the light of particular circumstances to attempt to strike an appropriate and reasonable balance between all of the interests. That is exactly what the very nature of this bill does. We had clear advice to the committee and we have clear advice through me to this Committee from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s legal team that that is what the bill does. We had a legal submission to the select committee I understand from Simpson Grierson that made the same point. So if the Opposition wants to continue to assert that the bill does not meet the obligations then it should find a legally qualified person who is expert in this area to say so. Until then the information that we have put on the table has to be taken I think at face value. 
I want to also talk about the comments that have been made around the wording on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in respect of clause 11 which is—let me just flick to that page quickly—“continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations”. A number of members have raised concerns about that wording. I simply point out to those members that it is a very well-used expression in this Chamber and exists already in this space in the Maritime Transport Act the Fisheries Act and the Marine Mammals Protection Act amongst others. So we are not talking about some new way of doing things. This is an established way of reflecting New Zealand’s international obligations. I suggest that those members consider the framework that already exists in this House and the appropriateness of it. 
I further want to make the point that actually the reason that concern was raised around the initial drafting of clause 11 and the reason we have not done what some members are suggesting which is simply put the words automatically into this bill actually comes in large part from the submission or is certainly reflected in the view of the submission of the Legislation Advisory Committee—which is at the end of the day the expert on legislation and presents from a very unbiased objective and highly respected view—that to do that would be entirely inappropriate. It made the point that it is not appropriate to build in these sorts of conventions and interpretation aids. 
The purpose of these obligations and the way to approach them is to ensure that we set up frameworks in our own domestic legislation as stand-alone frameworks that in and of themselves give effect to our obligations. That is what this bill does. That is what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has confirmed it does. That is what the legal advice to the committee confirmed was the case. So I say to Opposition members again that rather than just saying and continually repeating that it is inconsistent they should come up with someone who is prepared to say that and is an expert in these matters because the experts we have talked to who are in charge of this matter repeatedly say that this is the appropriate way to handle it. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has said it Simpson Grierson has said it and the Legislation Advisory Committee has said it. 
So I simply say to members that rather than continue to look for reasons to object to a bill that the members clearly simply do not want to pass they should put some meat on the bones of their submissions. We have done that. We have made the point as to why we are doing it. We have provided the evidence to back that up. Members opposite need to do the same rather than come up with more and more spurious reasons to simply not want to back this legislation. If they do not want to back the legislation Labour members should simply say that. Do not try to come up with unjustified obligations.