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:4491. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I do want to take an early call on this first part of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill recognising that one of the key issues that will be considered by the House in Committee this afternoon is around the purpose clause and the changes that the Government is recommending in Supplementary Order Paper 100 in my name and just to take the opportunity to address some of the matters raised by Mr Robertson in his contribution. 
Just leading into that can I make the statement first off by way of introductory comments in my first contribution this afternoon that this is a bill that everybody—certainly as far as I have heard and all the major players—recognise is long overdue is much needed and is an important piece of legislation to fill a gap in our framework that has been in place for some years and that the previous Government did not see fit to do anything about in its time in the House. We have come in and recognised that this is important legislation that fills a gap in the framework and it does need to be passed. My concern is about the continual steps made by the Opposition to defer the passage of this bill rather than actually have to make a call on it and form a coherent view. That is pretty consistent with its current position which is a reluctance to take a stand and an inability to address the clear divisions in its own caucus about whether or not it supports mining and whether or not it supports any activity in this space. Rather than form a coherent position rather than vote for a bill that it may want to vote for politically or vote against a bill that it knows it cannot justify its option is just to play for touch and try to come up with some procedural reason to see yet more delay come into this and more time without this environmental protection which everyone agrees is necessary in place. 
In that respect it is interesting to see that after the announcement of my Supplementary Order Paper we have had the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment come out in strong support of the passage of this legislation saying she is happy with the form of the legislation and she has called for it to be passed into law. She has called for it to be passed into law: the law is needed she thinks it is in a good position and she has called for it to be passed. I think that speaks volumes and the fact that the Labour Opposition is still unwilling to support it still unwilling to see this legislation put in place speaks more about the position it is in. At least the Green Party knows what it is opposed to. We do not have any surprise at the fact that the Green Party is opposed but at least it is prepared to take a stance rather than to simply political point-score and try to kick for touch. 
 I want to comment on the changes to the purpose clause which is in this part of the bill and on Supplementary Order Paper 100 which is in my name and which seeks to change it. We have decided that it makes better sense to have a purpose clause incorporating the principle of sustainable management. I have talked in public and made comments around the reasons we have done that and I want to repeat that here and now for the sake of the Committee. The changes are reflecting the fact that we do see considerable benefit for all stakeholders in having a regime of sustainable management that is well defined in case law that parties do understand and that importantly provides a consistency of approach between matters within the 12-mile limit and those outside that limit between the 12 and 200-mile limit. We can certainly see benefit in applications that will have impact on both sides of that 12-mile limit by having some consistency of approach. 
In that respect I want to comment on and respond to Mr Robertson’s allegations that although we have adopted what is a cousin of section 5 of the Resource Management Act there is in this legislation no equivalent of section 6 of the Resource Management Act which guides decision makers in carrying out their functions. In fact Mr Robertson is quite wrong. I direct him to clause 59 of the bill which does exactly that. Although that is not in this part I address it here because of the comments and concerns of Mr Robertson about the lack of an equivalent of section 6 of the Resource Management Act. Clause 59 of this bill does exactly that. It lists the principles that decision makers are to take into account and have regard to when they are making decisions in respect of this bill. In that way it absolutely mirrors the purpose of section 6 of the Resource Management Act in terms of its provision of information to decision makers for them to take into account. 
The other comment that I wanted to make in this early contribution is simply to reiterate once again that there are clear statements that the bill is compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and our obligations under it. Opposition members insist on trying to take a clause by clause look or a part by part look at those obligations. They are holistic obligations. They must be given effect to as a whole. They specifically enable sovereign States to make arrangements for using the economic resources in that zone in a balancing provision. That is exactly what this bill does and that is why it has been cleared as compliant with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and our other international obligations. So to continue with the line that suggests that it is not compliant is simply not correct and it is not borne out by the information from our foreign agencies that are in charge of monitoring our obligations under those international conventions. 
The bill is an absolutely essential piece of environmental legislation. It is long overdue. The National-led Government is committing to getting it passed. We would call on other parties in this Chamber that genuinely do want to see an increase of protection in the exclusive economic zone to work with us to see it brought into law. We thank those parties that have given support. We look forward to hearing the rest of the debate this afternoon.