O'Rourke DenisPart 5 Amendments to Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will be voting against this part as well. I would like to speak in particular about clause 184 which would amend section 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.What is objectionable about this is the exclusions. It defines dumping in subclause (1)(a) and dumping means any deliberate disposal into the sea of waste or other matter from ships aircraft and structures at sea;". It then goes on in subparagraphs (ii) (iii) and (iv) in relation to any deliberate disposal into the sea of ships the storage of waste and any abandonment or toppling of structures.But it is subclause (1)(b) that creates the difficulty because having quite properly prohibited the dumping of the things that I have just mentioned it then lists an incredible list of exclusions that are so broad as to virtually nullify the definition of dumping in subclause (1)(a). I refer in particular to the new definition of dumping in subclause (1)(b). This is what it says and listen carefully because it takes a lot of listening to Mr Chairman: "(i) the disposal into the sea of waste or other matter incidental to or derived from the normal operations of ships aircraft and structures at sea and their equipment other than waste or other matter transported by or to ships aircraft and structures at sea operating for the purpose of disposal of such matter or derived from the treatment of such waste or other matter on such ships aircraft and structures;". Did you get that Mr Chairman? Did you get that? That is really really clear.Tim Macindoe: Don't bring the Chair into the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes do not direct anything to me. I am impartial in these matters. You direct that to the Minister or to other members.DENIS O'ROURKE: I will. I will do exactly that. Minister did you get that? He is going to nod his head. Yes I am sure he would. But he would be one of the few because that is such convoluted nonsense as to be virtually unintelligible. It is so broad in its interpretation that there is virtually no point in having a definition of dumping in subclause (1)(a) at all.But what it really means is that we have a very very permissive regime here as to what can actually be dumped or disposed of at sea. It is far far too permissive and it actually amounts to a permission to dump at sea or on our exclusive economic zone or continental shelf a whole range of materials that ought not to be dumped. There is no reason for them to be disposed of at sea in that way.But it goes on in subclause (1)(b)(ii) and (iii) by saying that it prohibits dumping but it does not include "placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal of the matter but only if the placement is not contrary to the aims of the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention; or (iii) abandonment in the sea of matter (for example cables pipelines and marine research devices) placed for a purpose other than the mere disposal of it;".We are talking here about deliberate acts because abandonment is a deliberate act. It is not just a loss of those materials; it is a deliberate act to get rid of at sea those things that I mentioned. Somehow the words "other than mere disposal" are supposed to be some kind of a qualification. Well I do not think they are. I think this regime is far far too permissive. It is not something that we should be permitting as a Parliament—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.DENIS O'ROURKE: The exclusions to the definition of "dumping" in amended section 4(1)(b) are badly drafted and are far far too wide. They amount to permission to shippers and other operators on the economic zone and the continental shelf to dump and dispose of waste to a degree that New Zealand First could not possibly support and for that reason we will certainly be voting against it. What we expected in this bill is that there would be a tightening up of those things so that there would be fewer such activities."