Goff Phil: Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7082. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Government certainly has not been in a hurry to pass this bill the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. It was introduced 3¼ years ago. In fact it went through the select committee process very rapidly indeed. It was reported back to the House in November 2009. So for over 3 years this bill has languished on the Order Paper. The Government really needs to look at how it is managing its legislative agenda when it cannot pass legislation that sends an important signal. New Zealand is as the Minister of Conservation claimed seen as a leading country in terms of environmental protection in Antarctica. Every party in the House will support this piece of legislation but for some reason it has sat on the Order Paper for 3 years and no explanation was offered by the Minister as to why that is the case.Labour supported the introduction of this bill it supported its passage through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and it will be supporting the passage of the bill into law through its remaining stages today. The bill amends the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994. It does so to implement New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty Liability Arising from Environmental Emergencies. The origin of this particular protocol was back in Labour’s time in 2005 when the 28thAntarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting adopted an annex dealing with environmental emergencies occurring in the Antarctic.Quite a number of members of this House will have visited the Antarctic. Everyone who has been down there would have been just absolutely amazed at the pristine nature of an environment that is incredibly fragile and incredibly important to the world. And it is right that New Zealand with its activities at Scott Base in the Ross Sea area should be a leading country promoting the protection of the Antarctic environment.Back in 1959 New Zealand was very proudly one of the original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty. I want to talk just a little bit about this because it was a remarkable treaty for the time. Just think back to 1959 when the world was in the middle of the Cold War. It was at the worst stages of the antagonism between the Soviet bloc and theUnited States and the countries aligned to it. This treaty declared that “Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only.” That was the guiding principle of the treaty. It prohibited the establishment of military bases in the Antarctic it prohibited the testing of weapons there and it prohibited the dumping of any nuclear waste in the territory. It was a proud moment for the world. It showed actually that in the midst of the Cold War you could establish a model for international cooperation.In 1991 there was a further major milestone achieved. It was the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty—a protocol to the treaty that was concluded in Madrid in that year. That provided for comprehensive protection of the environment in the Antarctic. It set aside the Antarctic as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. That also building on the original 1959 treaty was a major milestone.The liability annex that we are debating today in the House was adopted in 2005. It sets out the rules and procedures relating to liability for damage that arises from activities taking place there. We played a leading role in the negotiation of that liability annex at the time when I was Minister of Foreign Affairs. In fact New Zealand was the chair of the negotiations.This bill implements the obligations that we signed up to in those negotiations. It requires operators—that is those who are conducting or organising Antarctic activities—to take prompt effective action when environmental emergencies arise from their activities. The New Zealand operators must notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade if they cause or if they discover an environmental emergency. If an operator fails to take prompt effective response action the annex party may do so and the defaulting operator must reimburse the costs to the annex party. The High Court is empowered to order the operator to pay an amount representing the costs that were incurred. This is paid into an environmental protection fund administered by the Antarctic Treaty secretariat.Failure to notify appropriate authorities or to take prompt and effective action has sanctions that are set out with terms of imprisonment I think of up to 2 years and/or a fine. I have got to say that those sanctions are not going to be the most effective deterrent. The most effective deterrent will be the reputation of the operator because the wrath of the world will descend on anybody who desecrates an environment as important and fragile as that in Antarctica. The bill sets out situations in which an operator is exempt from liability and it also imposes a financial limit on liability for emergencies involving a ship—that is the equivalent of US$1.5 million and US$4.5 million for other environmental emergencies.This bill is a positive step though it is not sufficient in itself to protect the pristine natural environment of Antarctica which could be threatened for example by oil spills from the increasing number of tourist ships that visit the region or indeed from fishing vessels. We have entered into an obligation to implement the liability annex and it is actually past time for us to finally do so. As I mentioned in introducing my comments this bill is now 3¼ years old. It was introduced a long time ago and it passed quickly through the select committee. Maybe the next speaker from the National Party side can explain why it has languished on the Order Paper and not progressed because I can see no reason why that should have been the case.Dr Paul Hutchison: It never happened under Labour!Hon PHIL GOFF: No no actually the Labour Government as Paul Hutchison so nobly admits was very active in passing legislation. It got legislation through and actually it was the party that organised and led the negotiations for the very important annex that we are recognising today in this legislation to actually pass through.The Antarctic environment is vulnerable and it is fragile and it is the more so because actually there is an increasing number of visitors going to Antarctica—something in excess of 50000 a year. That creates real threats to an environment that is as fragile as the ice sheet down there is. It is also becoming a magnet in terms of a much larger number of countries wanting to establish a permanent presence there. We should be leading by example and the delay in passing this legislation is not leading by example. We need the treaty to be ratified by all of the consultative parties and we should be leading the way so that this annex comes into effect as quickly as possible.Parliament can and should remedy the long delay in passing this legislation by putting it through its remaining second and third readings today. I welcome the legislation and I welcome the signal it sends that New Zealand continues to take very seriously its obligations in the Antarctic—in particular in relation to the protection of the environment there.