Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4489. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 The Labour Party would very much like to see this bill return to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The reason we would like that to happen in large part relates to Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams. This Supplementary Order Paper runs to some nine or so pages of amendments—actually it is longer than that; some 13 or 14 pages of amendments—that have been put forward in the name of the Minister. Many of these amendments are significant. They make substantive change to the bill. They are not issues that were dealt with in detail by the select committee. We are concerned on this side of the Chamber that the amendments will create loopholes in the law that will be exploited by people who want to undertake activity in the exclusive economic zone. There are some areas where we are simply not sure what the effect will be and we need the opportunity as a Parliament for officials to take the time to go back and look at these changes and give advice to this Parliament as to whether or not these changes will have the kinds of impacts that we believe they will have. 
We will of course now ask questions of the Minister for the Environment about these changes as we go through but that is clearly not the best way to be able to ensure that this Parliament is passing legislation that we believe will be robust. Dropping on the Committee in the way the Minister has substantive changes like for instance changes to time limits for hearings changes to the way in which existing petroleum activities become discretionary and questions around when mineral prospecting and exploration may continue and commence for planned activities are significant issues and significant changes from what has previously been put before this House. I think it is a shame that the Government is not prepared to take the time to get this right. 
Everybody in this Chamber acknowledges the importance of creating a robust regime around our exclusive economic zone and the activities that take place within that area. On the first reading of this bill the Labour Party opposed this legislation because we believed that it was inadequate in terms of providing that robust regime. We believe now after the second reading the select committee’s amendments and indeed the Minister’s amendments that it is still inadequate in terms of providing that regime and what is more it is now likely to increase uncertainty around activity in the zone. The Government would have an opportunity to provide that clarity if it did at least refer this bill back. 
In the first of my contributions on Part 1 I want to make clear that we are appreciative of the fact that the Minister for the Environment has made some changes to the purpose clause of this bill clause 10. There was a significant amount of feedback and submissions from not just Opposition parties but also a range of environmental groups which said that the purpose clause as put forward by the Minister initially was not a sufficiently robust overall framework in which this bill would be looked at. The clause tried to create a balance between economic development and the environment and as many submitters said it is not a matter of balance in this case. 
Now the Minister has returned to us with a clause around sustainable management that is drawn from the Resource Management Act. That is a step in the right direction. 
Louise Upston 
: Are you debating the right part? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is good but it is not part of what we would see as being the full right and correct answer. I am indeed on Part 1. Clause 10—for the benefit of the junior whip on the Government side—has the purpose statement in it. The purpose statement is now one that reflects the Resource Management Act but it does not reflect the international obligations that New Zealand has. We need to go further than the Resource Management Act when it comes to our exclusive economic zone. 
The reason for that is that our ability to make law in the exclusive economic zone arises from our ratification of and our being a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is absolutely clear in article 192 which provides that “States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.” That is what is called a general obligation. It stands alone as article 192 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has noted it is an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. Economic activity is allowable but protection and preservation of the marine environment is essential and required. That is why article 192 provides for that. 
Article 193 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does allow for the exploitation by States of their natural resources “pursuant to their environmental policies and in accordance with their duty to protect and preserve the marine environment.” The purpose clause of the exclusive economic zone bill must show to all those who are interested in activity in the exclusive economic zone that the protection and the preservation of the marine environment is the baseline understanding of how that activity will happen. At the moment despite the Minister’s moving the purpose clause to a better place than it was we do not see the language of protection and preservation appearing in clause 10. 
There was a lot of talk during the select committee about making this bill consistent with the Resource Management Act and that was an important consideration. It goes beyond that because the Resource Management Act covers what happens out to 12 miles and we want to ensure consistency. But the issues that impinge upon the area between 12 miles and 200 miles are larger than that and require a recognition of the protection and preservation of the marine environment. If the Minister wanted to take on that notion it would be possible to at least go an even further step towards getting us in line with our international obligations by providing to decision makers under the Act the matters they would need to take into account just as the Resource Management Act does in section 6 of that Act. It is all very well putting in section 5 of the Resource Management Act as the purpose clause but in the absence of giving an indication to decision makers about what are the matters of importance that are needed this clause falls short of providing New Zealanders with the assurance that they have a bill and a law that will protect and preserve the marine environment. 
Most of the organisations that submitted on this bill have said they accept that there will be economic activity within our exclusive economic zone but New Zealanders who are looking at that and looking back to events in the Gulf of Mexico and who are concerned about the isolation of New Zealand want to know that lawmakers understand the importance of creating a regime that is robust and based around those core principles of protection and preservation of the marine environment. That is absent from clause 10 it is absent from any other part of this part of the bill and that makes it very difficult for Opposition parties particularly—and I can speak only on behalf of the Labour Party—to be able to support a bill like this. It is made far worse by having other matters included in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
So there are Supplementary Order Papers on the Table both from Labour Party members and from the Green Party as well that are asking the Minister to relook at clause 10 of this bill and to give this bill a purpose that allows New Zealanders to say that we know our marine environment will be protected and preserved and to say to the rest of the world that we are taking our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea seriously. We urge the Minister to look at the Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table that would amend clause 10. It is indeed welcome that the Government has listened to submitters about consistency with the Resource Management Act but although that is good it is not good enough. 
In the few moments remaining in my first call around this part I also want to note that there are a number of other issues that have not been dealt with in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper that we believe should be dealt with particularly around questions on the way in which the Treaty of Waitangi is represented. There are also Supplementary Order Papers on that. We have Supplementary Order Paper 104 from Annette King which seeks to extend those clauses that relate to the Treaty of Waitangi to Moriori. That was an issue that was raised in the select committee. We believe it is important that it is noted here when we come to this particular part of the bill.