Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 30 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2735. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Labour Party members want to say absolutely clearly that we believe that this is an area where legislation is indeed needed. New Zealanders rightly expect that we will have robust regulations certainty confidence about those who wish to work and use resources in the exclusive economic zone and for New Zealanders confidence that the environment around them will be protected. Unfortunately the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill fails to do those things. Labour Party members are very pleased that we voted against this bill—the only party to vote against this bill—on the first reading. We did that then because we believed the bill was too weak. It did not provide sufficient protections and enhancement for the environment it did not meet our international obligations it does not provide certainty and it does not provide an inclusive process. Sadly though the Local Government and Environment Committee has changed one or two things none of those issues has been adequately addressed and we remain consistently opposed to this bill.  
Before I get into any more detail on the content of the bill and the concerns we have I also want to thank the select committee and the officials for the work that they did. I particularly want to acknowledge on our side of the House Moana Mackey for the work that she has done on the committee. 
Jacqui Dean 
: So why isn’t she speaking? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I have not been able to attend all of the meetings that I would like to so Moana Mackey has done an excellent job in that regard and will as the bill goes on I am sure make a number of contributions. I wonder whether Jacqui Dean might make some contributions. Somehow I doubt that that is going to happen. But Moana Mackey is certainly somebody who was able to bring a rigour of analysis to this work during the committee and I am very grateful to her and to other committee members for what they did.  
The problems with this bill start first and foremost in the purpose clause clause 10. Despite what the Minister for the Environment might like to think what the purpose clause does in this bill is create the pitched battle between the economy and the environment that the National Party seems determined to see continue right across our society right across our economy—that the environment and the economy are in a battle to the death. Of course in the National Party’s picture the environment must be defeated in the cause of the economy not realising of course that in fact the only way that the economy can grow sustainably is by protecting and enhancing the environment.  
That notion of the importance of the environment to enabling sustainable economic development is what is embedded in the international agreements around these issues—in particular the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. That is why people have been concerned throughout this process that this bill simply does not meet our international obligations. The Minister might like to just claim that it does but actually submitter after submitter who came to the select committee told us that it did not. And these were not just any old people coming to a select committee with an axe to grind. These were people who work every day on these issues who understand the legal ramifications of these issues.  
Let us start with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who actually came and managed to bring out the clause of the Convention on the Law of the Sea to make sure that we were absolutely aware of it. This is what the convention actually says: “States have the sovereign right to exploit their natural resources pursuant to their environmental policies and in accordance with their duty to protect and preserve the marine environment.” The parliamentary commissioner went on to say: “we can pursue economic development but we must protect the environment. The former—economic development—is optional. The latter—environmental protection—is not.” That is the point of our international obligations.  
To make it even clearer for the Minister who seemed to think that legal experts around the country were agreeing that this bill was somehow magically now consistent with our international obligations I refer her to the submission from the New Zealand Law Society to the select committee which makes it absolutely clear. This is from the Law Society’s submission: “The right to develop resources within the EEZ and on the Continental Shelf (conferred under the LOSC and customary international law) is subject to obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment”—subject to those obligations.  
This is not a question of some imagined balance or some imagined battle between the economy and the environment. The conventions to which New Zealand has signed up—the conventions that govern how our marine environment actually operates and is used—say clearly that development of resources is subject to the obligations. That has been lost in this purpose clause. Without bringing that back in this is not only inconsistent with our international obligations it is also wrong. It is wrong because it does not bring into the law the expectations of New Zealanders that we will protect and preserve our marine environment.  
We also have to make absolutely clear—and the Minister herself picked this up but drew the opposite conclusion from the Law Society—that the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf are actually not part of New Zealand’s sovereign territory. We exercise our rights over them pursuant to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. So to put forward as the Government has done legislation that actually contradicts that Convention on the Law of the Sea makes this legislation wrong on all those fronts: wrong because it contradicts it wrong because our right to be able to make this kind of law is actually pursuant to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and wrong because we know that New Zealanders want to see us protect and preserve our marine environment—the very clause that comes out from the Convention on the Law of the Sea.  
So the purpose clause of this bill is wrong. It needs to be changed. The Labour Party and I am sure other parties—the Green Party and New Zealand First—will be proposing amendments through this process in the Committee stage to ensure that we actually get a purpose clause that reflects our international obligations and actually reflects what New Zealanders want. New Zealanders have seen oil spills such as that in the Gulf of Mexico they have seen the damage that can be done out in the exclusive economic zone out beyond the 12-mile limit and they want to see robust protections. They want to know that our environment will be protected if people are going to be using resources in the exclusive economic zone. This bill through its purpose clause completely fails to do that.  
There are a huge number of other issues that I could deal with but I do want to pick up the Minister’s comment around consistency with the Resource Management Act and also to point out that once again during the select committee process submitter after submitter came to us and said that we need more consistency with the Resource Management Act. The delineation between the 12-mile limit inside which the Resource Management Act operates and the 200-mile limit in which this new legislation which is not consistent with the Resource Management Act will operate is merely a line on a map. It is not actually a specific place; it is not a specific thing. We need to ensure consistency. Again this is not just Opposition parties saying this. This was submitter after submitter from all sides of the debate— 
Jacqui Dean 
: It’s not true. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —from the regional councils who came to us and said they want—Jacqui Dean says it is not true! The Taranaki Regional Council came to the committee and said it wants consistency on this. It was not just environmental groups; it was actually submitters across the board wanting to see this kind of consistency. That is in part because the concepts within the Resource Management Act have been tested. There is case law there. People understand what is meant by sustainable management. Under this process new concepts and untested concepts will find their way into the law and that will be difficult for people to manage. Nobody is saying this will be exactly the same as the Resource Management Act but it should be consistent with the Resource Management Act.  
There are a range of other issues and I am sure my colleague Moana Mackey will take up a number of them as we go on. I want to specifically in this last couple of minutes mention the question around Maori and the relationship with iwi. I think this was an area in which universally iwi came to the committee and said that they were extremely upset by the lack of consultation. That clause has now been amended but I think it actually can be improved even more. But also I want to put on the record that the Labour Party will be proposing amendments to include specific recognition of Moriori. That was an issue raised with the committee. We believe that is appropriate given the role of Moriori particularly around the Chathams. So we will be proposing amendments in that regard.  
This bill is flawed. We need quality legislation that provides a robust framework that New Zealanders can have confidence in when it comes to the management of our exclusive economic zone. New Zealanders want the confidence that we will protect and preserve the marine environment as we are obliged to internationally and as we should. We will be bringing up many many amendments because this bill fails to give New Zealanders the confidence they should have fails to give certainty to those who want to work in the exclusive economic zone and fails to provide a process that people can participate in. This bill should have been significantly better than this. It should have given that certainty. We will work with the Government on good amendments to improve this to make sure that we actually have a bill that is internationally consistent that provides robust regulation and that supports New Zealanders in their concern to uphold the environment. This bill does not do that and we cannot support it at this stage.