Barry Maggie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3686. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. It is an important bill. There is some agreement that a bill was needed. There was a legislative gap because this is after all a vast area of ocean—20 times New Zealand’s land area. So legislation was clearly needed and I believe that the gap has been very adequately filled by this piece of legislation. It is a robust process that we went through as some of us here tonight know as far as the Local Government and Environment Committee was concerned—there were 125 submissions—exhaustive even. There was robust discussion amongst the committee members actually. If you listened to the Opposition you would think that no changes were made and that nothing was listened to. This is completely incorrect. The committee members made many positive changes that were recommended including exact clarification of what decision makers must consider and whether they want to favour caution and environmental protection when the information is unknown or the facts are uncertain. So favouring caution was a very important thing and clarification of that was tightened up in the wording.  
Also the select committee changed clause 14 which dealt with the Treaty of Waitangi. There were much stronger requirements in fact after the select committee process to take the Treaty of Waitangi into account. There was also much wider reference to our international obligations—and let us be really clear on the provisions because members on the opposing side have tended to gloss over this and say that we did not pay attention to our international obligations. I am not sure where they were when we were discussing this in the select committee. Some of them were sort of ring-ins and— 
Dr Jian Yang 
: Asleep. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: —possibly asleep indeed and not particularly engaged. But the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is something that we have taken very seriously as well. As my colleague Nikki Kaye pointed out earlier we actually put this through the lawyers—the legal team of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and they agreed. It was very much confirmed by a number of other legally qualified submitters to the select committee including from the New Zealand Law Society which we paid close attention to. So the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives New Zealand the right to explore and exploit marine resources in our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf but—and here is the but and it came out in the select committee very strongly—it also provides the obligation to preserve and protect the environment. The word “obligation” is a very important one. It is one that we in the National Government take very seriously. It is a moral and a legal obligation.  
 Other measures that the select committee had a really significant input into—and changes were made as a result of this—was to give effect to international obligations other than the Law of the Sea. I mean by this the Convention on Biological Diversity and to clarify that intention clause 14 of the bill was amended to refer much more generally to New Zealand’s international obligations in the marine environment.  
The select committee also recommended changes for a wider range of enforcement tools. They should be available to the public as well as to the Environmental Protection Authority. The committee recommended that any person—any individual—is able to apply to the Environment Court for an enforcement order to remedy or address any breach under the legislation. As others have pointed out with this legislation there needed to be more information and there needed to be more rigorous opportunities to engage if there was something that was not correct and that has been done. Those are the sorts of changes that have been brought in.  
New transitional provisions have also been put into place—again that was something that the select committee made a valuable contribution to. This Government is absolutely committed to making this legislation workable and to making sure that there are adequate environmental protections in place in the short term and the long term.  
Some people have argued tonight that the Resource Management Act should be applied to this to the oceans. It is not possible. When you look at it closely the complexity and the framing network—the network around the Resource Management Act—would be overkill. We are talking about a relatively uncrowded offshore environment in the marine area and really I think that the Opposition has missed the point here. Under that law of the sea New Zealand does not enjoy the full sovereign rights that we have on the land. It would actually be extremely difficult to apply the Resource Management Act in light of those rights duties and responsibilities. Other countries have those obligations and responsibilities within that zone. So there are a number of complexities around this and make no mistake about it: these waters are a vital part of our environment and they absolutely need protecting. I believe this legislation provides adequate protection.  
But also looking at these waters—and we must in these difficult times—they do offer significant economic opportunities. So covered by this bill there are activities including seabed mining the building of construction platforms for oil and gas exploration and drilling marine farming energy generation carbon capture and storage seismic surveying and cable laying. These are all extremely useful activities and under this legislation and under the regulations and under the rigorous system that we have laid out in this legislation I believe that we will be able to undertake the activities that I have outlined in a safe way and not have any adverse effects on the environment.  
Regional councils of course will still have a role. They will be responsible under the Resource Management Act for regional coastal plans and also for consenting in any areas in that territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles offshore. In my view having sat through the 125 submissions having looked at the bill and listened to the submitters very carefully—unlike other people perhaps who were calling in occasionally to the select committee—I would have to say that I absolutely support this piece of legislation. I think that Amy Adams has done a great job. I commend our chair Nicky Wagner. I commend the hard-working members of the select committee as well. So I commend the second reading of this bill to the House. Thank you.