Street Maryan: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21226. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Labour is opposing the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and I will talk about some of the reasons why. Clearly we have always been in favour of appropriate responsible and sustainable use of the environment for economic purposes but our deep concern over this bill is that its protested balance between economic benefits and environmental protection is insufficient. It is insufficient. 
This legislation is not robust enough to give either the Greens or the Maori Party—whose members I have just listened to very carefully—any reassurance that any of the things they profess to hold dear will be maintained under this legislation. Why is that? This bill does not balance or provide us with any assurance of balancing economic interests and environmental protection because in the end it comes down to regulation. Although we might have some confidence in the Environmental Protection Authority which will be given the oversight of this regulation it is dependent on the say-so of the Minister for the Environment for the things that it is meant to monitor and assess. The authority is dependent on the Minister’s determination of regulations which will not come anywhere near this Parliament will not go anywhere near the Green Party and will not go anywhere near iwi. The regulations will be the prerogative of the Minister to determine. In our view that is not sufficient to guarantee the kind of protection that is required. 
In the wake of the Gulf of Mexico fiasco the world has woken up to some of the very serious possible threats if deep-sea drilling and oil exploration are undertaken without due process and without proper monitoring and assessment. When these things happen 200 kilometres out from the shore when they take place out in deep-sea waters it is very difficult for anybody in this House to say they know what is really going on. Therefore it is incumbent upon this House to make sure that the protective legislation around deep-sea oil drilling for example is as robust as it can possibly be. But that is not what this legislation offers. 
There is no guarantee of protection. What we have is the offer of regulations as the need arises made by a Minister whose track record has been remarkably poor in this regard to date. As the Minister for the Environment he was prepared to sanction and support mining on protected parts of the conservation estate—on schedule 4 land in the conservation estate. It was not until 2000 people marched down the street in Nelson that this Minister realised he was on the wrong side of public opinion—that he was on the wrong side of how people felt about the need for proper protection of our precious environment. This is the Minister who supported exploratory measures around Dun Mountain out the back of Nelson which was exactly the area where his Government had mooted a cycleway extension. So we were being treated to the prospect of a cycleway being constructed around potential mining operations. That would have been a great tourist attraction for the Nelson area! 
I cite these examples because this Minister for the Environment in this legislation is asking us to trust him to get the regulations right and worse than that to get the balance right between economic prosperity and advancement and environmental protection. This Minister has no credibility in that regard. Already with two proposals very close to home for him he has failed the test—he has failed the test. It was only latterly that he said that Kahurangi National Park would not be touched by mining. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I was involved in creating the park. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Oh yes—in the latter days. Gosh! It was well under way under a Labour Government for goodness’ sake! He just comes to it last. It is like opening buildings that the Minister had nothing to do with advocating for in the first place. You know that happens. We accept that. We accept that a previous Government can set something up and an incoming Government gets to sign it off. I understand that; that happens. 
But in this regard this legislation is asking us to put faith in a Minister to make regulations that do not come anywhere near this Parliament for discussion. That ought not to be sufficient for the Maori Party. I am glad that Rahui Katene has drawn attention to the fact there is not adequate provision for consultation with Maori. We have already seen the fuss that has been created over the Raukumara trench and the oil exploration by Petrobras in that area. I suggest that having a two-and-a-half line clause in this legislation—clause 26 which refers to the Maori advisory committee—is not sufficient. 
I also draw attention to the Green Party’s comments. On 24 August when this legislation was introduced by the Minister the Green Party derided it for assisting dangerous extractive industries that contribute to climate change. I am sorry but today it seems to me that the Green Party is looking more blue than green. The National Party might like to celebrate its blue-green status although I have to say that with the opening of a lignite mine and the announcement of the opening of a plant in Southland the blue-green credentials of the National Party must be in tatters. The Green Party is beginning to align itself—in a foreshadowing of its possible coalition arrangements with National—in a way that makes it look now more blue than green. I ask the Green Party to consider this again. I hope that it listens really carefully to the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee and comes down opposing this legislation at its second reading. 
One of the other things that becomes apparent in this legislation is that there is a need for interim measures until this law is passed which will not be—even by the Minister’s own admission—until 1 July 2012. Interim measures need to be put in place. It says in the explanatory note of the bill that these interim measures will be developed in consultation with the industry or the various industries I presume that will be engaged in activities in our exclusive economic zone and our extended continental shelf area. I just hope that the consultation with the industries in this respect is a little more robust than the consultation with the film industry over the legislation surrounding that industry so that our legislation is not for sale.