Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 We come to the title and commencement debate and it is interesting when we look at the title of this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. If only that were true—that what this bill was entirely focused on relevant to the title were the environmental effects. What we have heard throughout the debate on this bill particularly in this Committee stage is that there is a willingness on all sides of the House to ensure that we come up with a piece of legislation that manages environmental effects as the title of this bill suggests it should. But the problem we have now got is that the bill that is in front of us today has reached such a point that although it is good it is not good enough. It is good in the sense that we now are managing environmental effects as the title suggests by making for instance the purpose clause more consistent with the Resource Management Act. That is a step towards managing environmental effects as the title would tell us the bill does. But it is a step not far enough in terms of being consistent with our international obligations in terms of making sure that we have a robust regime that reflects the concerns of New Zealanders about the management of the marine environment. 
The game has changed since this bill was given its title and I note that the commencement date in clause 2 has been pushed out by a year of course. What we know is that in the time that has elapsed since this bill originally began life under a previous Labour Government the bill changed in a number of ways when the National Government got hold of it. We know that concerns among the public about how environmental effects should be managed—that is the title of the bill—have changed. People have been through the experience of the Gulf of Mexico people have been through the experience of the  
Rena 
 and they realise that we need to manage environmental effects in a far more robust way. So giving this bill this title would seem on the surface to some people to be acceptable but actually in reality it does not meet properly the goal that it set itself in this title. 
On this side of the Chamber we would have liked the Government to adopt some of the Supplementary Order Papers put up by the Labour and Green parties. We believe that would have given the title of this bill some meaning. But at the moment unfortunately it is mis-titled and it does not deal with the environmental effects of activities in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf in the way that we would like to see. 
We need a more robust regime. We need to be using terminology in the bill that is understood that is clear and that makes sure that where the management of environmental effects is undertaken elsewhere in our legal process—i.e. through the Resources Management Act—that is reflected in the bill. That is reflected now in the purpose clause; it is not reflected in other parts of the bill where Labour and the Greens proposed amendments that would have made it happen that way. So I think the title of this bill is in fact misleading. It does not manage environmental effects in the exclusive economic zone sufficiently to give New Zealanders the confidence that any activity that takes place there will be alongside a robust regime. That is what all parties I believe in this Chamber set out to do. 
The Government has improved the bill that it introduced but it has not taken it far enough for the Labour Party to be able to support this bill. Despite things like the penalty provision being extended which is a good thing what we now have is a piece of law that still is inconsistent with our international obligations still has too much uncertainty inside it has new provisions introduced by way of a Supplementary Order Paper that we do not know the exact meaning of and as a result fails to meet the test of the title that it has been given.