Ardern Jacinda: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10265. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of this bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. I do want to just note that when there was a closure motion called for Part 1 and there were those of us who wanted to try to take a call and were disappointed that we did not have a chance to debate what is an incredibly important bill the Attorney-General’s response to that denial of what I would call a basic element of a democratic procedure in this Committee was “Stiff bickies.” “Stiff bickies.” was the call.Hon Christopher Finlayson: No it wasn’t.JACINDA ARDERN: What was it? Was it “Stiff cookies.”?Hon Christopher Finlayson: No “Stiff cheese.”JACINDA ARDERN: “Stiff cheese.”—I stand corrected. I am glad that that will be on the record. It was “Stiff cheese.” I am glad we cleared that up.Grant Robertson: Was it brie or camembert?JACINDA ARDERN: The deputy leader asks a fine point. Does the Attorney-General wish to further define his type of cheese?Chris Hipkins: Blue cheese.JACINDA ARDERN: It was a blue cheese of course.It is important that we have the chance to fully debate particularly this section of the bill. One of my concerns is that even in Part 1 of this bill which we have obviously already closed off our discussions on there was a bit of discussion about the types of companies that might be drawn into our exploration regime in New Zealand via this bill. I spent a very small amount of time working for an Associate Minister of Energy—like Chris Hipkins said this certainly does not make me an expert in the field—who obviously had the same portfolio that Mr Bridges the Minister of Energy and Resources now has and that is around oil and gas exploration and mining. What I certainly learnt in that time was that this business is a high-stakes game. It is incredibly expensive to operate in this field and yet we have discussion in this bill that uses language like that someone “who does not have the expertise or financial ability” to operate in this area having the use of conditional permits. If you do not have the expertise or the financial ability then you will not last in this sector for a particularly long time. Nor will you potentially—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No.JACINDA ARDERN: —have the success in what is obviously a high-stakes game. Sorry Mr Chairperson I am bringing you into the debate. So that was a point I just wanted to make before moving on—that this “give it a punt” mentality will bring in I think the kind of low-grade exploration and explorers that the Green Party hasreferenced. That is bad for everyone particularly when the Labour Party’s views on these issues are that until we can give the absolute guarantees that we need and the protections that we need particularly for deep-sea drilling that is not a space we are willing to go into. If the Government at the same time is opening up for rogue explorers then that is absolutely not a space we want to move into.But moving on to Part 2 the amendment to section 55 in clause 14 is the area I want to talk about. As has been raised this is the extension of that much-protested—ironically—provision that 79 percent of New Zealanders were opposed to and that was the setting of limitations around the right to protest out on the seas and now out on the high seas. The change in definition that we have seen here in clause 14 is: “In section 55 new section 101A replace the definition of offshore area with: offshore area means any area that is—(a) within the territorial sea; or (b) within the exclusive economic zone; or (c) on or above the continental shelf.” I wanted to do a little bit of reading about what the definition of the continental shelf is. There was a United Nations declaration signed on 29 August 1980. It was a statement of understanding. That makes this declaration I think about the same age as the Minister. That declaration set out a definition for the continental shelf—this is really interesting—“The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea ...”. It is absolutely correct that we have mining rights over the continental shelf according to this declaration under article 76.If we move on though to article 78 which sets out the legal status of the superjacent waters and airspace and the rights and freedoms of other States it says—[Bell rung] Mr Chair—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Jacinda Ardern.JACINDA ARDERN: Thank you. I did want to get through this UN declaration because clearly this has not been explored nearly enough and I hope the Minister will respond to my questions here. Article 78 of this declaration which as I said sets out the legal status of the superjacent waters and airspace and the rights and freedoms of other States sets out in the first point that “The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters or of the air space above those waters.” and in point 2 that “The exercise of the rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf must not infringe or result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation and other rights and freedoms of other States as provided for in this Convention.”—of other States and probably of the citizens of those States because as this declaration clearly points out yes mining rights do exist over the continental shelf but those rights are limited to activities in the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas. Above that continental shelf those same rights do not extend. We are at the high seas point at that point and as article 78 points out “The rights … over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters or of the air space …”.So this Government does not have the right to extend this already much-disliked and hated provision to the continental shelf but it is going to try and if it is going to try that then it might as well just go for the airspace as well. Why do we not just have protests banned from the air as well anything above the continental shelf? It is just as ludicrous.Grant Robertson: Don’t give them ideas.JACINDA ARDERN: We could just claim as a territory all of Mars while we are at it because it is actually about as legally possible.This declaration goes down as far as article 85 to tunnelling: “This Part does not prejudice the right of the coastal State to exploit the subsoil by means of tunnelling irrespective of the depth of water above the subsoil.” Again it is reiterating that at sealevel and at the subsoil level you can go for gold literally. It is the State’s patch. You can tunnel it you can mine it you can drill it—sorry Mr Chairperson—according to this UN declaration. I am not advocating that this is what the Government should do. It should not take this as a challenge. So the Government can go in and tunnel. A protester could be banned from tunnelling but they cannot be banned from doing anything at sea level. That is the distinction that we are trying to make here.The point I wish to leave with the Minister is whether he can tell the Committee whether or not this declaration—which as I pointed out has been around on this Earth as long as he has been—was even looked at. Was there any consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in drafting these provisions? The Minister is doing a very good job of pretending that he is not registering any of these questions. Or was this simply something where the ministry determined we did not need to look at any of this? Did it just simply decide that what was signed at an international level did not matter? And is it possible for the UN to question these kinds of limitations that we are now legislating in an area where the UN has said that we cannot prevent other States? And that might mean a citizen from the United States who might want to come over and protest in our waters. We cannot set a limitation on them so how can we set a limitation on our own citizens in that regard? I would ask the Minister to rise and speak to that very important question.