Hughes Gareth: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10267. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui. Kia ora. It is a bit late Mr Chairperson. We are in the Committee stage of the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill where we get the ability to drill down into the parts and clauses in detail and have the ability to make amendments. I was thinking about writing some amendments but actually we should just throw the whole bill out. This is an embarrassment for the Minister of Energy and Resources. It is a shoddy process it is bad content and I do not know why we are here in urgency doing it.What I want to focus on in this call is clause 14—this egregious clause. I do not know whether the Minister thought he could get away with this but sneakily under Budget urgency he is trying to extend out these egregious powers these anti-democratic powers these anti - human rights powers. Clause 14 relates to new sections 101A and 101B in section 55 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Act—the so-called Anadarko amendment. It introduces five new criminal offences if protesters—and it is only protesters—protest against seabed mining or drilling and it is only seabed mining or drilling. It is a ridiculous situation. You could commit the same offence on land and get about a third to a quarter of the same penalty and we have the ridiculous scenario now where if you do something against one particular industry that has got Government friends in the Beehive you will face higher penalties. In fact I believe these are unconstitutional and unlawful laws.This Anadarko amendment was lawmaking at its worst and that is what clause 14 is amending. This was legislation that was introduced via a Supplementary Order Paper. We have heard mention in theLawTalk magazine that experts were critical but I have also got a letter here from the New Zealand Law Society to the Attorney-General criticising the process and suggesting: “Why can’t we have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis for substantive Supplementary Order Papers?”. It is a good idea and I think we should look at that at the Standing Orders Committee. We saw no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act consideration and no select committee process. It is a terrible process and what the Government is now doing is trying to sneak in an abhorrent expansion of it.Let us put it in context. Protesting at sea—which is what clause 14 is amending by amending the definition of offshore; that is all it is doing—is honourable. It has played an important role in our country’s history and in our Government’s history whenNorman Kirk sent that frigate to Mururoa. I note that Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern have a background in the energy industry and some experience with petroleum. I have a bit of experience on the other side. I sailed on theRainbow Warrior protesting at sea and successfully I might add when the Labour Government worked to ban deep-sea bottom trawling in international waters between New Zealand and Chile. So it paid off. We saw some success.What we are seeing here is all about supporting the mates. Clause 14 has dubious legality and I hope the member Phil Goff will take a call because by adding this word I believe we are making an unprecedented international move that I think as a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade he would have some experience with. If other States took a step like this I think New Zealand would be critical. What New Zealand is doing is unilaterally extending its jurisdiction over the extended continental shelf. This has been the subject of huge international debates over the Spratly Islands between Japan China Sarawak and Taiwan and huge debates up in the Arctic and New Zealand—little old New Zealand—under urgency is deciding what it wants to do with jurisdiction. No country has been able to sort out all the vexed grey areas in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea but New Zealand is just racing ahead deciding it with this amendment in clause 14 passed under urgency.I want to look at the detail. Clause 14 is interesting because there is only one word changed. It is the introduction of the word “or”. It was late last night when I picked up why this inclusion of the word “or” was so important. I have spent the day on the phone with legal professors from various universities and international law experts who work in international forums to see whether this was as big a deal as I suspected late last night under urgency—the inclusion of the word “or”.Let us go back in history because in the Crown Minerals Amendment Act the new definition of “offshore area” was defined originally as meaning “any area within the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone that is on or above the continental shelf”. I missed the inclusion of the word “or” because what this reminded me of was how poor the drafting was with the Anadarko amendment. It is actually logically inconsistent. If you are in the territorial sea or the exclusive economic zone of course you will automatically be on top of the continental shelf in New Zealand. It is inconsistent. I thought they were just fixing this schoolboy mistake of the Minister with his amendment but actually what they have done is snuck in the word “or” in clause 14. It is the territorial sea the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf. What this is is a massive expansion because now the five new criminal provisions are extending out over an additional—