Little Andrew: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4512. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Following on from the last speaker Paul Goldsmith if there is one thing that the members on the other side of the Chamber just do not get it is that the world is changing—the world is changing. There is a race on. There is a race on for resources and they are mineral resources and they are fossil fuels. Whereas before there has been no proper and adequate regulation of the exclusive economic zone in this country and indeed in many other places around the world now there is a need to do that. It is those offshore areas that have become the target for the bounty hunters for the pursuers of that mineral wealth. This side of the Chamber says that there is nothing wrong with chasing and pursuing those mineral resources provided that there is recognition that this is not a long-term strategy. 
The world is changing and the availability of particularly fossil fuels is changing. What there are left are difficult to obtain or in difficult to get to places of the world. That is why deep-sea oil drilling has now become the key target of investors and oil companies around the world. It also means that even other mineral resources—and I am referring specifically to seabed ironsand mining—are getting harder to come by in many other places around the world. So the race is on. 
But the other big change is that the world has become much more sensitive to and aware of the impact on the environment of this type of intervention when it comes to harnessing and trying to get those resources. I know that in the area where I grew up and spent a lot of time in Taranaki it is not a simple equation of drill more get more. There are many members in the community up there—and it will not be just in Taranaki and it will not be just the surfers who go off East End in Fitzroy or down at Opunake— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Back Beach—Back Beach. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Mr Calder there are not many surfers down at Back Beach at the moment. There is a rahui in place. The member may not be aware that there is a rahui in place at the moment. 
But typically the surfing community and many others who are dependent on that part of the great Tasman Sea for their livelihoods are very concerned about the proposed developments in that part of the world. I might also say that the surfies off Lyall Bay are somewhat concerned too not because they want to stop the opportunity but because they know and are aware of the impact that it will have. And so it is very important that the legislation that we put in place is sensitive to and takes note of the environmental impact. 
So we come back to clause 10 of the bill which is the purpose clause. Modern interpretation and modern judicial activity now look very closely at the purpose of legislation like this and there is an expectation. The courts expect that Parliament will express itself clearly and consistently. If there are questions that are going to arise over the pursuit of development opportunities in our economic zone then the courts will be looking at not only the regulatory legislation but our international obligations as well. That is why the purpose section of the legislation is so important. Where we clearly have international obligations that we are expected to meet as a compassionate global citizen then we need to get it right. 
The problem with the wording of clause 10 even in the Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 is that it simply does not properly reflect the international obligations that we have. It is not enough to say that we just have this balance where one day we will go for unfettered unrestrained development and on other days we will pay due respect to the environment. It is about the international obligation that we have signed up to which is to preserve and protect—preserve and protect—the marine environment. That is our obligation. 
Although the international obligation does not stop economic development—oil drilling seabed ironsand mining—it does mean that our principal starting point our primary obligation is to preserve and protect the marine environment. That puts an onus and an obligation on the regulators when they are considering applications for development to ensure that the safeguards—proper safeguards meaningful and effective safeguards—are in place so that the marine environment the seabed and the sea that flows through it are not affected adversely or improperly and so that we still have an ocean environment for future generations to partake of to enjoy and in which to harness the natural products of the sea and of the marine environment. So the point I am making is—