Volume 682 Week 19 - Thursday 16 August 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 682 Week 19 - Thursday 16 August 2012 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4467. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 16 August 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 21 August the Government will look to complete the third reading of the Appropriation (2012/13) Estimates Bill and the remaining stages of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. The Government also intends to progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I inquire of the Leader of the House whether the Government has abandoned its intention to move next week on liquor law reform given the intemperate comments of the Minister in charge of the bill? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. We have not made a decision about a time for the bill to come into the House so clearly we have not abandoned anything. 
Points of Order 
Personal Explanation—Leave Sought to Correct 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct a personal explanation I made to the House yesterday. [ 
Interruption 
] It is all right— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I must be able to hear clearly. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yesterday in relation to the— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No a point is being— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There is objection. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise if I did not hear objection. That is why I called for more silence—so that I could hear. I apologise. It seems that I will need to put the leave again to clarify the situation because if there is objection I should not ignore that. I did not intentionally ignore it. I feel I should put the leave to the House again. Leave is sought for the Hon Maurice Williamson to correct a personal explanation he made yesterday. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to make it clear to the Government that the Labour Party will not speak if the Minister chooses to correct his ministerial explanation by way of ministerial statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s attempt to be constructive but I am not sure there is a provision for that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well he can do it if he wants to—any time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can certainly make a ministerial statement at any time. That is quite correct. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economic Growth—Report and Forecasts 
1. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on progress in building a faster-growing economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Last week Treasury issued its monthly economic indicators for July which showed the domestic economy remains in relatively good shape compared with most other developed countries. New Zealand posted a better than expected 1.1 percent GDP growth in the March quarter taking annual growth to 2.4 percent compared with March 2011. This is better than most other developed countries and compares well with Australia. Inflation is currently subdued. This should allow interest rates for households and businesses to remain lower for longer. Indicators suggest New Zealand will continue to achieve moderate economic growth in coming quarters despite the further deterioration in international conditions we have seen recently. 
Todd McClay 
: What recent assessments of New Zealand’s economic prospects has he received from offshore? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: New York - based credit ratings agency Standard and Poor’s this month affirmed New Zealand’s long-term foreign currency rating at AA with a stable outlook. We also remain one of only nine countries now with the highest possible AAA rating and a stable outlook with Moody’s. Standard and Poor’s noted this country’s fiscal flexibility resilient economy and strong political and economic institutions. The ratings agency also noted that New Zealand has favourable prospects for sustained growth while there remains strong demand for our agricultural exports. As it pointed out New Zealand’s high level of private sector external debt remains its largest vulnerability. It is therefore pleasing to see the projected household savings rate reaching 4 percent by 2016 and remaining positive for a significant period of time—in fact the longest period of time for 20 years. 
Todd McClay 
: What reports has he seen on reactions to the Government’s various initiatives to boost exports and economic growth? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have seen many many reports that talk about economic growth but would do nothing to boost economic growth and increase jobs. I have seen reports of people talking about returning the Government’s finances to surplus then opposing every measure to reduce spending so that we can start repaying debt. I have seen reports of people wanting to encourage business growth apparently but then wanting to tax successful businesses more. I have seen talk of people wanting more jobs but then proposing to pull up the drawbridge behind them by banning foreign investment. I have seen reports of people being supportive of convention centres when they are in Government but vehemently opposed suddenly to similar convention centres in Opposition. And I have seen reports condemning resource extraction in New Zealand but then bemoaning people leaving for jobs in the Australian mining sector. It is fair to say that those people are playing politics rather than having the best interests of New Zealand at heart. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought answers to questions were meant to be terse and to the point and in that case the 5-minute bell was just about ready to ring. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a reasonable point. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Answers should not be longer than necessary and I fear that that one did go on longer than necessary and I blame myself for allowing that to happen. I should be more vigilant. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister think that the 50000 New Zealanders a year who are leaving are going because they believe he is making progress in building a faster-growing economy or perhaps are they going because they see jobs being displaced by people on work permits working for less than the minimum wage or is it because they see jobs being lost in the manufacturing sector which is contracting? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well it is not the latter because the jobs in the manufacturing sector have been growing over the last 2 years so we can rule that out. I think that if you look at it what we can reasonably assume is that those who are going to jobs in Western Australia are going there primarily to work either in the mining and resources sector or in sectors that service those sectors. The Government after a long period of inaction by the previous Government is working to get the settings right to encourage reasonable levels of development of New Zealand businesses such as the resource sector in this country. And we would welcome the support of the Opposition parties in doing that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given that ratings agencies Standard and Poor’s Moody’s and Fitch Ratings have all criticised New Zealand’s lack of export diversification and high-value exports why does the export public relations glossy that he issued yesterday contain no quantitative target for export growth until the year 2025? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member’s analysis is as deep as the normal puddle. The reality of the progress report— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will well remember yesterday drawing the Minister’s attention to similar intemperance in his answer to my question yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! And indeed I would have responded directly myself had I not listened to the question carefully and heard derogatory comment in the question. So if members include—well the member referred to a publication that the Government put out yesterday as some glossy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That’s not derogatory. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not objective language. If members want Ministers to stick to objective language questions should contain objective language. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Referring to a glossy publication as glossy is hardly subjective. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The language was intentionally—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The Speaker might look stupid but he is not that stupid. The language was intentionally derogatory about a publication. It is common language to refer to something as a glossy when it is considered not to have much content. The Minister therefore is at liberty to respond to that. And that is the end of the matter. I will not entertain any further points of order on that issue. Let me be very clear about that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to re-ask the supplementary question omitting the word. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No the member asked his question. The Minister is answering it. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The point the member misses is that actually New Zealand’s exports have grown substantially in the last 4 years and in fact have grown 5 percent in the goods exports per annum over 4 years and 4.2 percent per annum every year over 4 years as well. So we are making very good progress in exports. I tell you what would upset the ratings agencies would be if we attempted to manage the exchange rate as proposed by the Labour Party which is true voodoo economics— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is sufficient on that. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have no right of recourse against the little snipe about voodoo economics from the man who has his head in the sand— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat right now. He knows he has intentionally abused the point of order process. I will not tolerate that. Members know that if they ask straight questions they will get straight answers if they use objective language. If they try to be clever do not expect the Speaker’s protection from more clever answers. Had the Minister gone down that track at the end there in response to a very direct straight question with objective language I would have reprimanded him severely too. But I will not tolerate the point of order process being abused like that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to relook at the tapes for this week of every answer and every supplementary answer from that Minister and find one answer that was straight. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We are not going to get into that kind of argument by way of point of order. If members ask straight questions I will do my best to endeavour they get straight answers. But the discipline is on the questioner. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table an original version of the Government’s  
Building Export Markets  
paper to demonstrate that the word “glossy” is in fact— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Members will very shortly be leaving this House if they carry on this way. I do not care whether members have questions on the Order Paper or not. I will not see the point of order process abused like this. 
Ministers—Confidence 
2. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Ministers; if so why? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; because they are hard-working and competent Ministers who are working hard for a better future for New Zealanders. 
Grant Robertson 
: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Social Development who despite being told by the Director of Human Rights Proceedings that she was wrong to release the details of beneficiaries for political gain has refused to apologise or even rule out doing it again? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I note that the director of proceedings for the Human Rights Commission has made the comment that this is a settled matter and that is where it lies. 
Grant Robertson 
: How is it credible for him to have Ministers such as Judith Collins say that she has zero tolerance for privacy breaches in ACC or for Work and Income staff to be sacked for accessing personal information when he is actively endorsing one of his Ministers—Paula Bennett—to do just that? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can again only repeat to the member the words of the director of proceedings who said: “On the basis of the Minister’s letter to me I have agreed to close my file. The matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. The letter from the Minister [to the complainant is available in the public arena]. We have all agreed that the letter speaks for itself and we will make no further comment.” 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he agree with Judith Collins that people should lose their jobs over privacy breaches; if so why will he not dismiss Paula Bennett for doing just that? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There was no breach found by the director of proceedings for the Human Rights Commission—simple. 
Grant Robertson 
: Would he have confidence in a Minister who released the details of tax paid by a business person who was campaigning for lower taxes; if not what makes that different from doing it to someone like Natasha Fuller who was asking for reinstatement of the training incentive allowance? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is a hypothetical suggestion and I am not going to answer a hypothetical question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Land Information when the Minister told the House yesterday that a pivotal court case involving May Wang—which case he gave as the reason for the Overseas Investment Office and him being restrained—had concluded when the truth is that that pivotal case is not finished but subject to adjournment until 14 September? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Because the Minister has handled this totally appropriately. He did not give authority for May Wang—or permission or approval for May Wang—to buy those farms and as soon as these legal matters are dealt with his department will in fact require those farms to be disposed of. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Land Information who got up in the House yesterday and gave erroneous information from his department and asserted it in numerous points of order and explanations to the House allowed by the Speaker when in fact the critical reason that he gave for delay is not the fact—the case is not over; it is adjourned in Hong Kong until 14 September? How can he have confidence in a Minister who gets it that wrong even on notice? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well the question was not on notice. Secondly the salient point is that this is an illegal acquisition and it will be dealt with. 
Chris Hipkins 
: In light of his earlier answers can he give the New Zealand public an assurance that the Minister of Education Hekia Parata did not access any Government records of personal information in order to identify which schools teachers writing to her to express concern about class sizes worked at given that she sent her replies to those correspondents to their employers rather than to them; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can only speculate that the information probably came to the Minister of Education with the teachers themselves identifying the schools that they were in. Therefore it was referred to them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Land Information when the Minister and his department chose despite 27 months’ delay not to use their powers under section 42 of the Overseas Investment Act which includes fines of up to $300000 to fine Ms Wang and her company for the illegal purchase of four farms? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My information is that in this circumstance you cannot move until that court case is dealt with but the intention is the same. Those properties will be disposed of. 
Chris Hipkins 
: If it is revealed that the Minister of Education did in fact access personal records in order to identify which schools teachers corresponding with her about class sizes worked at will he expect her to resign; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Another one of these speculative and hypothetical questions! My suggestion is that the member needs to set down a question to the Minister of Education to get better clarification of the situation. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I seek leave to table a letter that was sent to the chairperson of a board of trustees—with the name of the board chair and the board removed and the teacher’s name removed—from the Minister of Education dated 1 June 2012 responding to a letter that was sent to the Minister of Education expressing concern about class sizes. It was sent to the board not to the individual concerned. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Health Targets—Elective Surgery 
3. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress can he report on the numbers of patients receiving elective surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The latest district health board data shows that an extra 7500 patients got elective surgery in the last 12 months meaning 153000 people got the operations they needed in the last financial year. More patients are getting hip and knee replacements cataract surgeries and tonsillectomies sooner and more prompt treatment improves recovery and gets patients back to normal life sooner. This means that under this Government the number of patients receiving elective surgery each year is now 35000 more than in the last year of the previous Government. Under National there has been a 30 percent increase in elective surgery. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What progress has been made on reducing waiting times for elective surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Members will be aware that the Auditor-General expressed some concern that about 10 percent of patients treated in a certain period were waiting more than 6 months on a waiting list. As a result the Government has worked with district health boards in order to reduce the number of patients waiting longer than 6 months to get their treatment or specialist appointment. We have in the last year reduced that number by 85 percent from 5700 to 840 patients. This includes 690 patients on Canterbury District Health Board’s list and if they are excluded only 152 patients who are booked to see a specialist or get surgery are waiting more than 6 months across the country. This is a great achievement by the doctors and nurses and the New Zealand public health service. 
Poverty—Official Data 
4. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Does she stand by her answer to oral questions on Tuesday that “There is in New Zealand no actual poverty line” and “I do not see the measurement as a priority”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Yes because it is correct. There is no official measure of poverty in New Zealand. The actual work to address poverty is perhaps what is most important—things like insulating homes making sure that we legislate for CPI increases in benefits getting people into work and ensuring children have access to free health care. That is the priority for this Government. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: When she said that the Ministerial Committee on Poverty was “getting things done” instead of “just worrying about measurements” had she read the one Treasury paper provided to the committee which stated that “getting a New Zealand-specific sense of the dynamic poverty data could be a useful place to start.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I certainly stand by the work—the hard work—that is going on within that ministerial committee. What we are concentrating on is the things that matter to New Zealand and particularly to those most vulnerable children. Quite frankly the list of the work that is happening is so long that Mr Speaker you would not allow me the time to actually read it out at this time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! What I would allow the Minister to do though is to answer whether or not she had seen the paper that was the subject of the question. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What information was used to generate the figure in her own green paper that “Nearly 20 percent of New Zealand children live in poverty.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think that is exactly where we say that the measure can actually be controversial and at the same level speculative. What we have done as you have seen—you would have seen the research behind that green paper—is that we have taken it from a variety of measures and come up with 20 percent. But I would say to you that it is relative and it could be changed. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she agree that 20 percent of New Zealand children live in poverty? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think children move in and out of poverty pretty much on a daily basis. What I do not agree with—[ 
Interruption 
] Well they do. One week they can be in poverty then their parent can get a job or increase their income and they are no longer in poverty. Get in the real world! This is not “Labour Land”. This is the real world and actually children move in and out of poverty at times on a weekly basis. It is a fact. Read the research. What I do not agree with is that poverty and measuring it are what is most important for New Zealand children today. There is plenty of evidence that says that many many many parents whose children— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Paula Bennett was asked whether she agreed that 20 percent of New Zealand children are living in poverty. We have heard a diatribe but no answer to the most basic question. Does she agree yes or no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Well Ministers are never required to answer yes or no to that type of question. The Minister has stated how she sees that figure and she has argued to some interjection from the other side that children move in and out of poverty. It is clearly an answer to the question. It may not be the one that member was—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. 
Hon Annette King 
: Sorry Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you. It may not be the best of answers—that is not for the Speaker to judge—but the House was clearly indicating what it thought of the answer. But it was in order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now that there has been that interruption—and I apologise to my colleague for cutting in front of him again—I think it would be appropriate if the Minister started the answer again because I think we have lost some of the flow of it. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I do not think that— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now look this point of order process will not go on too much longer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Surely the rudimentary assumption from the question is that on any given day—that is the 20 percent—on any given day does she agree that 20 percent are in poverty? Do we have to have these tortuous explanations— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member cannot dispute answers by way of point of order. If the member does not like the answer ask a supplementary question. That is what question time is about. It is not about raising points of order because the answer is not liked. I am certainly prepared to entertain points of order when questions are not answered at all and I intervened with this—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I say to the Minister do not interject. I have had enough of this today and there will not—the Minister is showing no more discipline or less discipline than a 3-year-old child. It will cease. I am serious. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she agree that today 20 percent of New Zealand children live in poverty? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I have not even called the Minister. Can I encourage the Minister to settle down. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have not measured them today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 5 Dr Russel Norman. [ 
Interruption 
] Now look! I apologise to Dr Russel Norman but the noise will—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The House will settle down. This is absolutely disgraceful. Members of the public watching this will email me this afternoon about how disgusted they are by some of the behaviour. It has happened too often this week. I have had too many such communications this week and I do not like that kind of reaction from the public. 
Privacy Issues—Release of Personal Information by Ministers 
5. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he agree with the statement made by the Hon Bill English in relation to the release of Natasha Fuller’s private details by his Social Development Minister that “People who enter into public debate are welcome to do so … and should provide their full information to the public”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the director of the Office of Human Rights Proceedings that Paula Bennett breached the Privacy Act when she released Natasha Fuller’s private details without her permission? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In fact there has not been a finding that the Minister Paula Bennett breached the complainant’s privacy. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does that mean that he supports Paula Bennett’s decision to reserve the right to release other people’s private details without their consent in the future “depending on the circumstances” and is this now Government policy? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will the Prime Minister direct other Ministers to follow the Privacy Act and not release private information without the consent of the people concerned? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Ministers do every day follow the provisions of the Privacy Act and many others as well. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When TaleniLafo entered the public debate about the state of Housing New Zealand Corporation homes claiming hers was making her children sick under what circumstances would he consider it appropriate for Ministers responsible for the Inland Revenue Department social development or housing to access her personal details about herself and her family and make them public? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The first expectation would be that the Minister investigated the circumstances and remedied the problem. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked about the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to release the information. The Minister talked about what they should do in the first instance. He did not address the question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has got a reasonable point there. I invite him to repeat his question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. When TaleniLafo entered the public debate about the state of Housing New Zealand Corporation homes under what circumstances would the Prime Minister consider it appropriate for Ministers to access her personal details and those of her family and make these details public? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is a hypothetical question and I am not answering a hypothetical question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When sexual abuse survivors criticise Government plans to cut back ACC for sensitive claims under what circumstances would the Prime Minister support the Minister for ACC accessing the survivors’ personal files and releasing their private personal details to the media? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This is once again a highly hypothetical question. The member can go on all afternoon trying to put forward these alarming situations in a hypothetical sense. They cannot and will not be answered. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Are there any circumstances in which it is acceptable for a Minister of the Crown to go to the Government files and access the personal private details of a member of the public and release those details without consent in order to make political gain? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have to say once again he is asking for the answer to a question that poses hypothetical situations. What I can say is that when it comes to people like Stewart Murray Wilson the public expect those details to be in the domain. Therefore it is a very difficult question to answer specifically. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked for basically a policy guideline. What is the Prime Minister’s policy for guiding Ministers on releasing this information? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member actually asked if I recollect correctly whether there are any circumstances under which such information might be accessed and released. In answering it it appeared the Minister indicated that perhaps there might be some depending on the circumstances. That seemed to be the answer the Minister gave because he seemed to cite a situation where that might be a desirable thing to do. It is totally the Minister’s right to answer how he sees fit but it was certainly an answer. He indicated that there may be some circumstances. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that having a Government that releases the private information of people who oppose Government policy—information that is available only to the State—is an approach that silences dissent chills dissent in a democratic society and is not acceptable in a democratic and free country? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well quite clearly by the long list of examples the member has given this afternoon that is not the case. 
Television Switch-over to Digital—Hawke’s Bay and West Coast 
6. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What percentage of households in Hawke’s Bay and on the West Coast of the South Island have gone digital ahead of the digital switchover in these regions on 30 September? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Ninety percent of households in Hawke’s Bay and 92 percent of households on the West Coast of the South Island have already gone digital ahead of the switch-over on 30 September. There is a high level of awareness in these regions—at least 96 percent—of the need to go digital. Although some households may choose not to go digital I fully encourage others to make the switch well before 30 September. Nationwide 86 percent of households have already gone digital and are enjoying more channels better pictures and new services. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What action needs to be taken by those households that want to watch TV after the digital switch-over? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: To keep watching TV households need to go digital either by having FreeView Sky or TelstraClear or by acquiring a set top box. People wanting to find out what they need to go digital should visit www.goingdigital.co.nz or call 0800 838 800. The rest of the South Island will have its digital switch-over at the end of April 2013. The digital switch-over awareness campaign will be rolled out across the rest of the South Island in the coming months. 
Family Court—Fees Subsidies and Access to Advice 
7. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What assistance will be available to families unable to afford the fee of over $900 she proposes to introduce in order to access the new Family Dispute Resolution Service? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The premise of the member’s question is incorrect. The fee for the new Family Disputes Resolution service is not over $900. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek to table a document from the Minister’s office released 2 weeks ago indicating that the fee to access— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Is this a press release though? 
Charles Chauvel 
: No it is a Q and A issued by the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document from the Minister’s office. Is there any objection? 
Charles Chauvel 
: To be clear— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have put it to the House. I have put the leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask that you review the systems within your office that allowed this question to be accepted if in fact it was not properly authenticated. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The issue is an interesting one. Indeed information for authenticating a question is often accepted as information in a press release and that is often what is supplied. Just because a question is authenticated to be within the Standing Orders for it to be asked does not automatically mean that information contained in it is correct. I draw that distinction to the attention of members of the House: authentication does not of itself imply that the information contained in a question is correct. There is no way that my office can identify whether or not—it is beyond our means to be able to ascertain whether or not information is correct. We can only authenticate it in terms of the information provided and that is what was done here. The Minister it appears is refuting the accuracy of the information provided and the Minister is at liberty to do that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Now that the Family Court review has been completed will she reconsider the proposed restrictions in the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill on entitlements to civil legal aid including its requirement that the parties should meet the costs of counsel for the child? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That bill is currently being considered and of course with the Family Court review and hopefully the shifting of many applications into Family Disputes Resolution so that they do not need to go court there are expected to be some more changes coming to the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill. 
Charles Chauvel 
: In addition to the 1200 New Zealand families every year that her officials say will be deterred by the new $900 fee from using the Family Court what modelling has been done on the deterrent effect of requiring families to pay for the cost of counsel for the child and the new legal aid entitlement threshold of an income of only $22000 per annum? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: In fact the advice from the officials was that about 1200 families would be able to have their matters dealt with in the Family Disputes Resolution service—in other words preventing them from having to go to the Family Court to get their matters resolved. I would have thought that most people would think that when we had 26000 applications to the Family Court in the 2010-11 year and they involved only 8000 families that tells us that there are an awful lot of applications and repeat applications from the same families whose matters have simply not been resolved to their satisfaction. Family Disputes Resolution will be about helping them to come to the right conclusions. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister addressed the premise of my question but not the substance of it. The substance asked her about the modelling that has been done if any on the deterrent effect of requiring families to pay for the cost of counsel for the child and also being met by a new entitlement to civil— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! To save time I will allow the member to repeat his question because I sense that there is some validity to his point. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Thank you. The question is: in addition to the 1200 New Zealand families every year that her officials say will be deterred by the new access fee from using the Family Court what modelling has been done on the deterrent effect of requiring families to pay for the costs of counsel for the child and the new legal aid entitlement threshold of an income of only $22000 per annum? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The member has again put statements in his question that I do not believe give the full and right context. The officials have indicated that around 1200 families will not need to go to the Family Court because they will be able to have their matters resolved by the Family Disputes Resolution service. I would have thought that every responsible member of Parliament would think that was a good thing. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry but I am renewing my objection— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Order! On this occasion having listened very carefully this time to both the question—the member will resume his seat—and the answer I think the Minister’s answer was a perfectly valid answer. The member made a statement at the start of the question. He did not ask what modelling had been done; he made a statement about advice around deterrents to use if I remember correctly. The Minister in her answer argued that that statement was incorrect and she is at liberty to do that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a further point of order? 
Charles Chauvel 
: Yes. I am just trying to understand your ruling. I did— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The ruling is very simple to understand. If the member goes back and looks at the question asked he made a statement before asking about modelling. He said “given”. When members do that they run a risk. There have been some Speakers who have not allowed that. I allow that because I think it is quite important because sometimes that “given” might be “given the Minister’s previous answer” and I think it is good that members have listened to answers. The risk is that if a member makes a statement like that prior to asking the substance of the question the Minister is at liberty to dispute that statement. That is what the Minister has done and that is a perfectly fair answer. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to be very clear. I did not begin my question with “given that”. I did make a statement: I said “in addition to”. But surely if the Minister disputes the statement she is entitled to do that but she is still required to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not at all. Not at all. If members include statements in their questions Ministers are perfectly at liberty to dispute the statement made and that is the end of their answer. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What advice has she received about how the closure of the Manukau Counties Community Law Centre next week and the threatened closure of other community and specialist law centres around New Zealand will affect the ability of family members to get access to the advice and representation they need to resolve domestic disputes involving vulnerable children? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am fully aware that there are in effect better services being put in place to deal with the situation in Manukau. If the member would like I am very happy to provide him with a briefing. It is quite a sensitive matter but actually better steps are being put in place. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked what advice the Minister had received about the effect of these closures on family law services. I do not think that was addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said that better services will be provided. She did not clarify whether that was the advice she had received. I will give the Minister the opportunity to clarify that. The question did indeed ask what advice she had received and I think that should be answered. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The supplementary question is a very long way from the primary question and if the member wanted to have very detailed information he could have put it down as a primary question. But I have already offered the member a briefing which is quite sensitive given the fact that there are some— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister is going on beyond what is necessary for a point of order right now. I accept the point the Minister is making that we have gone from Family Disputes Resolution services to the Family Court but it is not unrelated. That is why I do not think it would be fair to rule out the member’s supplementary question. I believe that would be unfair. But the question asked what advice the Minister had received on that matter. Maybe the Minister does not have that information with her today and that would be a perfectly fair answer given the distance from the primary question asked. But I think it is unreasonable to ignore the question and because of the time that has passed I invite Charles Chauvel to repeat his question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What advice has she received about how the closure of the Manukau Counties Community Law Centre next week and the potential closure of other community and specialist law centres around New Zealand will affect the ability of family members to get access to the advice and representation they need to resolve domestic disputes involving vulnerable children? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not have that information with me and I invite that member to write to me about it because so far I do not believe I have received any communication from him. 
Charles Chauvel 
: In respect of civil legal aid and the Family Court as well as access to justice in that court what has changed since the President of the New Zealand Law Society Jonathan Temm said that the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill and related measures were misleading about the savings they would deliver would have an impact on child poverty would make savings in one place but result in cost blowouts in others and would fail to serve New Zealand’s most vulnerable people well? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I suggest for a start the period of time because there has been a lot of water gone under the bridge since Mr Temm made those comments and he is certainly very pleased with some of the work that we have been doing on this. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: If whanau do not have access to the new Family Disputes Resolution service or any form of dispute resolution in the event that they cannot afford the fee what proposals will she be putting forward to ensure that whanau are able to access these services without income limitations preventing them from being able to do so? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is a really good question and the answer in fact is that families that cannot afford the fee or their share of the fee will be able to be subsidised so that they can access the service. We are very keen to get more people out of court and get these matters sorted out in a family situation. 
Court Facilities Masterton—Range of Services 
8. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: In light of the opening of the temporary courthouse in Masterton last week what is the range of services that courts can now offer in Masterton? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Firstly I would like to thank the member for his assistance in the process of identifying and securing a temporary court facility for Masterton and also the community in the Wairarapa for the patience it has shown during the period that the courts have been operating out of the Frank Cody Lounge. I am very pleased to say that with the new temporary courthouse operational a full range of court services—criminal family civil and tribunal—is once again being delivered in Masterton. 
John Hayes 
: What progress is being made in repairing the original Masterton courthouse? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Good progress is being made and may I announce plans to fix the Masterton courthouse to bring it up to appropriate building safety standards. This work is on track with expressions of interest having been sought in tender documents released today. It is intended that this work costing about $3.5 million will be completed by April next year. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Can the Minister confirm that all collections officers employed in the Masterton courthouse have been made redundant effectively leaving the entire Wairarapa region without any full-time collections officers? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: I am unable to answer that question given its divergence from the primary question. I am happy to seek that advice and to get back to him if he wishes to ask that question again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 9 Denis O’Rourke. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Can the Minister confirm that all collections officers employed in the Masterton courthouse— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon? 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I understood that you were asking for the question again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no not at all. I was calling for question No. 9. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I am sorry Mr Speaker. 
Christchurch Recovery—Plans for Christchurch Cathedral 
9. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Was restoration of the Christchurch Cathedral included in the Christchurch Central City Recovery Plan; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 No. Provision is made in the plan for a cathedral on the present site but there is no indication of what form it will take. That is a matter for its owners the Anglican Church. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Does the Minister consider that the restoration of a building having the cultural heritage and social importance of the cathedral merits public investment as part of the Christchurch earthquake recovery programme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are many buildings that would meet those criteria and programmes need to be developed for all of them. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question did not relate to buildings in general in Christchurch. It related only to that particular building. That was what the question was about. It should be answered on that basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! But the member’s question if I recollect correctly asked whether the Minister considered something. The wording of the question in that way is never going to lead to a very precise answer. The Minister answered what he considered in respect of buildings of that nature. 
Women—Well-being and Status 
10. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: Is she satisfied with the action this Government has taken to improve the lives of women in New Zealand? 
Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 Yes and I will give the House some examples to demonstrate this but I acknowledge that there is still more work to be done. My priorities are to increase women’s safety from violence their participation in leadership roles— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The question did not ask about the Minister’s priorities at all. All the question asked was whether she was satisfied with the action this Government has taken to improve the lives of women in New Zealand. I think the Minister answered that. 
Sue Moroney 
: What action has she taken to address reports from Wellington Rape Crisis that a funding crisis has forced it to close down 1 day a week when demand for its services has nearly doubled in the last year given that she has a goal of increasing the safety of New Zealand women? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: Ministerial responsibility for funding and working with Rape Crisis does not rest with me as Minister of Women’s Affairs. However reducing sexual violence as the member has already alluded to does remain a priority for me. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs contributes to cross-Government work in this area and has reviewed New Zealand and international literature on sexual revictimisation compiling an evidence base that will be used to good effect across Government work. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked what action she had taken to address reports from the Wellington Rape Crisis centre about its predicament. She did not address that question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The House will come back to order please. I thought I fairly clearly heard the Minister say that she did not have responsibility for the funding of the Rape Crisis centre. That is a perfectly fair answer to the question asked. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I pointed out in my question the Minister has a goal of increasing the safety of New Zealand women. That does mean that she has responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker cannot argue with a Minister over who has responsibility for certain things. I heard the Minister very clearly say that she did not have responsibility. That is the end of the matter. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will she then reinstate the comprehensive Action Plan for New Zealand Women which her Government discontinued in 2009 and which the United Nations has requested be reinstated to improve the lives of New Zealand women? Will she take any action? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: I am very happy to answer this question because this Government has not just an action plan for women but in fact action plans across the Government sector that women will definitely benefit from. Can I give one very good example of an action plan that will be very beneficial for women. The Reducing Crime action plan will reduce violent crime by 20 percent over the next 5 years. 
Sue Moroney 
: What about the Rape Crisis funding? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: As that member knows women are disproportionately the victims of crime and therefore they will benefit more than men from this. Reducing reoffending by 25 percent over the next 5 years— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think that is a reasonable answer to the question. We do not need to go on indefinitely with answers. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked whether she would reinstate the Action Plan for New Zealand Women and I am still no further ahead in my understanding. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I just ask the member though if the member wants a very specific answer to please make the question short and to the point so that I can discern as Speaker whether or not it is being answered. I believe the question went on somewhat longer than that and that is why I let the answer go on a bit longer. But the member has a further supplementary question if she wishes to be very precise about it. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is she the first Minister of Women’s Affairs to vote against extending paid parental leave? A straight question Minister. 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: In regard to paid parental leave the Government voted against the member’s bill. However we still spend $157 million a year on providing the current 14 weeks of paid leave. I believe that the member cannot require a yes or no answer and therefore I will say that the dangers of running up huge deficits through extending paid parental leave is not something— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. She was asked directly whether she was the first Minister to vote in a certain way and she is yet to give us the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member may wish to reflect on the ministerial responsibility—ministerial responsibility—a member has for a member’s vote. This is question time about Ministers’ ministerial responsibilities not about how members vote in this House. I allowed the question but strictly I believe the question was not in order so I am not going to force a Minister to give a yes or no answer on something that there is no ministerial responsibility for. Votes in this House are the votes of members. 
Rape Victims Support—Wellington Rape Crisis Funding 
11. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Is she concerned that Wellington Rape Crisis is shutting its doors one day a week because of funding shortfalls? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Yes although I have just been reading a press release that says Wellington Rape Crisis thinks it is going to get that $55000 and may not have to shut on that 5th day. But certainly from my perspective it is a valued and respected service for Wellington. 
Jan Logie 
: Then why is the Government not providing enough funding so that vital services can be assured for victims? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think it is really important to say that there has not been a reduction in Government funding for this organisation and in fact—[ 
Interruption 
] Well there has not been. I have certainly gone back and looked very very carefully at the figures in the last couple of hours and the information I have in front of me is that it has not had a reduction from Child Youth and Family. What it may have got was Community Response Fund funding which was as we all know time limited and came up at the end of last year like it did for everyone. But there is no way that there has been a cut in funding. In fact there has been an increase in its services from Child Youth and Family. 
Jan Logie 
: Given the national increase in demand for sexual violence services how does the Minister plan to protect organisations from the impact of effective funding cuts by ACC and the Ministry of Social Development for adult survivors? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think that is a really fair question. What we have been doing is working with Te Ohaaki a Hine—National Network for Ending Sexual Violence Together which certainly has been making representations on behalf of that sector to the Government. The member I am sure is fully aware of the task force and some of the recommendations from it. What we did instigate last year which I think is quite important is for the sector to have at least more say over its funding and how it is divided and we put more funding certainly out of my own budget into that pool so that it can have more say on how it is distributed. I think that ongoing funding and increases are always a challenge and particularly in these times but we are certainly open to continued dialogue so that we can work our way through the issues. 
Jan Logie 
: Does the Minister think it appropriate that Rape Crisis is reliant on one-off offers of money from organisations like Hell Pizza which is trying to assuage its guilt for giving money away—giving a free pizza—for a confession of sexual assault? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I do not feel I have ministerial responsibility for what Hell Pizza may or may not have been doing. What I can say to the member is it is a shame that Wellington Rape Crisis had not asked to come and see me before I saw the press releases this week because I would have willingly seen those people and perhaps have tried to work through a way to do this without going through the media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Jan Logie—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to be able to hear Jan Logie. 
Jan Logie 
: Does she believe that the current funding crisis may be due to a lack of leadership as evidenced by the media being bounced between Ministers denying responsibility when they were trying to get comment on funding for Wellington Rape Crisis? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No and as I say I have carefully gone through both phone calls and correspondence in my office in the last few weeks and have seen nothing from Wellington Rape Crisis. 
Transport Funding—Capital Connection Rail Service 
12. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Which commuter rail services if any do not receive funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The only rail service that may meet the definition of “commuter service” not to receive funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency is the Capital Connection. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Does the Minister believe that as well as congestion relief factors such as safety economic development environmental sustainability and value for money must also be taken into account when apportioning funding for public transport; if so is he aware that fewer resources are consumed and far fewer injuries and deaths occur per passenger kilometre as a result of rail travel when compared with roads? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: All those facts are important and will be considered as my officials look at the business case for the continuation of the Capital Connection rail service which has been provided to my office this week. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Given that the Government is prepared to borrow $2.3 billion for the Wellington road of national significance which has a negative benefit-cost ratio will he ensure that the Capital Connection gets the $0.0003 billion a year it needs to provide the service which has a benefit-cost ratio of between 1.6 and 3? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government is not borrowing for the roads as was suggested by the member. 
Estimates Debate 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 14 August on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill. 
Vote Labour 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the estimates in Vote Labour. This is a Minister of Labour who has given up on her department. She has handed it over to Steven Joyce’s mega-ministry the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment or MOBIE where the labour portfolio will be swallowed up into— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I am aware of what the member’s point of order is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The Government is missing. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes we need a Minister in the chair. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am sorry to interrupt the member. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: As I was saying the Minister has handed over her portfolio to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment or MOBIE where the labour portfolio is going to be swallowed up into the so-called business-facing ministry. Of course the labour part of business does not count for this Government. In its view it is only business and money that count. Workers have nothing to do with wealth creation in its world and they certainly do not deserve a specialist department that looks out for their interests. It is the first time in 121 years that we will not have a labour department with the expertise and focus on improving our effective employment relationships protecting workers from exploitation and developing labour market strategies. The Department of Labour is one of our oldest Government departments with a proud history and record hailed by other countries for the work it has done but this Government and this Minister have ditched it. Over the last 4 years all we have seen is the Minister of Labour overseeing a department that has spent a lot of time arguing on an ever-shrinking role for the department and managers arguing over which bit they are going to be in charge of. 
At the estimates hearing when we asked there was no plan and no budget for Vote Labour even though it was due to merge with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment 1 week later. The only thing useful we did learn was that the Department of Labour’s Mediation Service—a service that Labour introduced which has a very very successful record in resolving employment relations problems—might be wound up together with other mediation services like tenancy and weathertight homes. There is a lot in common between workers and weathertight homes I am sure. What we will do is lose the expertise. The Employment Relations Authority is in a mess. It is in disarray. It has long queues of cases waiting to be heard and it has determinations in the hundreds outstanding. The appointments process has been a shambles. It has been skewed by cronyism and the Government no longer seems to think that employment relations experience is important for this job. 
 Night after night we hear on the news the impact on New Zealand workers and their families who are paying the price of this Government’s slackness. Job after job family after family story after story—each one a human tragedy—job losses and good skilled jobs at that are happening right across our country. Under the 4 years of this Government 25000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared. They are good jobs that we need. But we do know that John Key’s Government gave up a long time ago on trying to improve Kiwi jobs and Kiwi wages and he has been trying to attract investment to New Zealand on the basis of cheap labour. The Government boasted about Heinz Wattie giving up on 400 or 350 good jobs in Australia and moving to New Zealand. Well let us tell the truth about what happened there. What happened there is those 350 good jobs have ended up in New Zealand as 70 labour-hire workers on minimum wage. I do not think that is anything to be boasting about. 
The other panacea that we hear all the time from the National members is about the 90-day trial period. What I find so interesting about their boasting about its success is that in all the research that they have done they have not been able to find a single worker to give feedback on it and especially those who have been sacked without reason and without recourse to justice. Under this Government’s watch we have had one of the biggest scandals ever around workers with the exploitation of foreign fishing crew. Sure the Government set up an inquiry and it has indicated a resolution 4 years out but what shames us all is that the 100 or 200 foreign fishing crew who were courageous enough to walk off their ships tell their stories and give evidence to the ministerial inquiry have been sent home and a year later they still have not been paid what they are entitled to and have not been paid the minimum wage. 
And now of course we have heard the story on Television One last night that there is a significant problem with other migrant workers. The Minister needs to set up an inquiry into that as well because clearly sitting back and waiting for exploited workers to come forward and tell their stories does not work. I am looking forward to hearing a plan from the Government about how it is going to tackle this latest scandal. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Don’t hold your breath. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No I will not hold my breath. I have had several contacts from people since that story broke last night but one today told me it is not only migrant workers but also young people—students and others—who are being employed by larger companies in malls and being paid $10 an hour. So you know something is going wrong with the Department of Labour when it cannot get on top of these scandals. As someone said on the news this morning this is unsustainable. We cannot build a future based on cheap labour. We know that the Government is doing nothing about training New Zealand workers—162000 of them. Any of them would have loved to have one of the jobs that this Minister actually approved. She approved the 110 façade installers coming to New Zealand instead of insisting that this company train New Zealand workers. These are jobs that workers could be easily trained for. They are described as basic labourers’ work. I am worried about the Christchurch rebuild as that will become a ground for further exploitation of migrants. 
The one thing I will say I am grateful for is that the employment relations changes that were revealed in May have not seen the light of day in this Parliament. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Yet! Yet! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It is a relief and a reprieve—yes—for workers and particularly for those caregivers on minimum wage at Aranui Home and Hospital who were on strike for 3 days a couple of weeks ago because they had not been able to conclude a collective agreement. They told me they are extremely worried about the Government’s amendments because it means that their employer will just simply be able to walk away from the bargaining and these low-paid workers will have to continue with their employer-imposed individual contracts. The Government and the Minister have been warned that these changes—the changes that they are planning for amendments to the Employment Relations Act—will have consequences for wages for fairness for collective bargaining and that they will be in breach of our international obligations. I expect them to ignore that as they usually do. 
Finally on health and safety I will acknowledge that I think the Minister is sincere on that but I am worried about the direction of that—where the task force is going on that. I had a look at the fishing health and safety plan today. There is no worker involvement. It just believes in individual responsibility and in a model that is about individual human behaviour. Have a look at the advisers to the health and safety task force—have a look at what their experience is. There is hardly any worker input into that because this Government does not believe that working people have anything to contribute as equal participants in the workplace. It thinks that workers should stay in their place keep their mouths shut and be grateful just to have a job. 
Finally can I mention once again—as I have often in this Parliament—the cleaners in this place who clean up after us every night who are on minimum wage who want $15 an hour and who could have $15 an hour if this Government was prepared to support David Clark’s very very reasonable Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. I cannot believe that in a place like this where we are supposed to set an example the Prime Minister is prepared to see his cleaner Jaine continue to be paid $14 an hour—she gets $14 an hour because she is a supervisor—and because she is on only 30 hours here work two jobs because that is the only way she can make ends meet. She is over 60. She is tired. She has been working long hours on low pay for most of her life. Now she has her son working here so he can help the family. This Parliament has to do something about it. We can do something about that situation—they are not the only minimum wage workers in this place—if the Government is prepared to stand up and be counted when it comes to David Clark’s Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. 
So there is a lot happening in this labour portfolio. I do fear that this will be the last time we talk about Vote Labour—well maybe it will not be but it will be Vote Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. It will be overwhelmed by Steven Joyce’s ambitions. From what I have seen of the restructuring that has been planned for this mega-ministry the Department of Labour—the very very important role that it has played for 121 years—will be squashed will be subsumed and will have all of its energies apparently directed towards being business-facing—business-facing where workers do not get a look in where all of the important work that we have had to do fails. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 That was 10 minutes of moan after moan complaint after complaint with zero solutions—zero solutions to the problems of the world. Let me tell you that I am happy to take a call on Vote Labour because we have got a good story to tell. We have got a good story to tell because we are seeing more jobs created in the economy— 
Darien Fenton 
: Oh rubbish! 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: We are. The figures do not lie. We are seeing fewer workplace stoppages out there in the workplace. We are seeing a more harmonious working environment for New Zealand workers. 
I think that any Government’s labour relations policy should be judged on several things two of which are: how many jobs are created in the economy and how bad are the workplace stoppage rates in the workforce. We have got some good stories to tell. In the last 2 years 60000 jobs have been created in this economy. That means 60000 people are out there working because jobs have been created in this economy. Over the next 4 years we are expecting to see another 154000 jobs being created in the economy. Those are jobs created for New Zealand workers to go out there earn a crust pay their taxes to the taxman go home and enjoy themselves because they have worked an honest day’s work. 
On workplace stoppages we have some good stories to tell here too. Let me give the House some figures. In 2005 there were 60 workplace stoppages. In 2006 there were 42 workplace stoppages. That was at the height of Labour’s time in office. The cost to the economy was quite high too. In 2005 we saw $4.8 million of workers’ wages and salaries being lost to workplace stoppages. It was $5.2 million in 2006. Come round to 2011 after several years of Kate Wilkinson as the Minister of Labour under John Key’s leadership and workplace stoppages are at an all-time low. We had only 12 workplace stoppages in 2011 versus the height of Labour’s problems with 60 workplace stoppages. Lost wages and salaries for New Zealand workers are at an all-time low of $1 million. Those figures tell us that the harmonious relationships in New Zealand workplaces are good. Harmonious relationships are leading to fewer people having their wages and salaries lost and fewer workplace stoppages that businesses are having to deal with. 
Our 90-day trials have done very well for New Zealanders too. We know that there are 13000 extra people working because the 90-day trial periods allow New Zealand employers to take a chance and employ some people. We saw workers having the opportunity to trade in an extra week’s leave. The other side does not believe in choice. The other side does not believe that workers know best how to spend their money and workers know best how to take their holidays. We gave workers that extra week’s choice and people are taking it up and they are enjoying it. We have had some minimum wage policies implemented under this Government that are fair and sensible and have actually seen $1800 extra in the back pocket of minimum wage workers after tax. 
If we were to follow the policies that members on the other side wants to see if we were to follow their policy-subjective arguments then we would see 6000 people who would be unemployed because the Department of Labour has told us that if we went ahead with David Clark’s bill if we went ahead with what Labour wants 6000 extra people would be unemployed. Under Labour 90-day trials would go. Under Labour a sensible pragmatic minimum wage policy would go. Under Labour we would see more jobs heading offshore because we know that when Australian jobs came to New Zealand and when manufacturers from Australia said “We see New Zealand as a better place to bring our business.” we actually had David Parker opposing those jobs coming here. David Parker went out in the media and told New Zealanders that Labour— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: Anti-jobs. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: —was anti-jobs and that Labour did not want to see more jobs coming to this country. Labour members said that manufacturing jobs coming to New Zealand for New Zealanders was bad. They told New Zealanders that the $1.5 billion of economic benefits from  
The Hobbit 
 films being made in New Zealand was a bad thing. Labour is anti-jobs. Labour has done nothing to support our pro-jobs pro-growth economic policies and it is a disgrace when it comes to labour policy. 
We have got a good story to tell. I am proud to tell it and we have got a good Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson working hard for this country. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Immigration agreed to.  
Vote Veterans’ Affairs—Defence Force agreed to.  
Vote Veterans’ Affairs—Social Development agreed to.  
Vote Commerce agreed to.  
Vote Communications agreed to.  
Vote Environment agreed to.  
Vote Internal Affairs agreed to.  
Vote Customs agreed to.  
Vote Lands agreed to.  
Vote Statistics agreed to.  
Vote Senior Citizens agreed to.  
Vote Women’s Affairs agreed to.  
Vote Courts agreed to.  
Vote Consumer Affairs agreed to.  
Vote Revenue agreed to.  
Vote Maori  Affairs 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. I want to congratulate first and foremost our Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Pita Sharples who has done a sterling job not only for the Maori Party but also for steering some resources into the Maori community and also Whanau Ora. The naysayers about Whanau Ora will go on and on about a few fullas down somewhere getting a bit of extra money but here is the thing: working on the whole family not just a little problem here and there that becomes a bigger problem if left alone is the way of the future. And what better way to use public money—public money taxpayer’s money—than by fixing up the whole family identifying the problems and parking the five cars up the driveway so the family does not have to go 10 miles to the south for the social welfare 10 miles north for some other assistance and 10 miles east for some other assistance. That is what Whanau Ora is. That is why we the National Government have supported and put money into Whanau Ora. 
Maori health—we talk about Maori health— 
Andrew Williams 
: Don’t forget the Mongrel Mob. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: See there you go. That is all they can do. All they can do is tear down. I remember what the Rt Hon Helen Clark said about some other party: they were haters and wreckers. Well I will tell you who the haters and wreckers are. They are those people over there. They even denied a Minister leave to make a personal statement. How rude. How appalling. How unconstitutional. But I digress. 
We have got a problem out there called rheumatic fever and this Government has made sure that one it has seen the problem and two it gets in and tries to fix it. So that is why money has gone in to making sure that that disease of poverty is no longer around. All the health organisations around the country in the poorer areas—in South Auckland and in the north—have welcomed this Government’s commitment to making sure that young people have what we had and that is the opportunity. They do not want a handout. They want the opportunity to grow. 
Also there is Maori economic growth. There was one time when nobody knew what it was. How is the Maori economy fitting in to the national economy? 
Mike Sabin 
: Does in Northland. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well I tell you what. Only a couple of weeks ago I attended an economic forum put on by none other than the new member for Northland Mike Sabin. There was a huge turnout of people not only in the social services area but in the business area and the employment area who want to get on with the job of training and employing young Maori from the north. They see that the longer Maori are unemployed in the north the longer the economy does not work. The economy should work for everybody. So I applaud the Government’s view and I applaud the Government’s initiatives but I also applaud the personal initiative of MPs such as Mike Sabin. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: What did Shane Jones say? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Look nobody is really interested in what Shane says any more which is a pity—which is a pity—because before he leaves he still has a contribution to make to this wonderful Parliament. 
There is one thing that I will say that this side of the Chamber has done better than anybody else and that the Government’s commitment to Treaty settlements. 
Louise Upston 
: Absolutely. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. Do not look sideways at me Mr Grant Robertson because some other people might think that you are thinking something else. [ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Unfortunately the time for this debate has expired. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That member Tau Henare has stated that the Rt Hon— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Le’aufa’amulia 
 ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: I am seeking leave Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not how you start to seek leave by criticising another member. 
Le’aufa’amulia 
 ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: I am trying to seek leave to correct a comment that was made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No you cannot do that. You cannot correct. That is a debating point; that is not a point of order. The time— 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to request that the member who has made an incorrect statement about Winston Peters— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! Sit down please. I have ruled on that. That is a debating point. You cannot enter into a debate or the alteration of a debate by the mechanism of a point of order. You simply cannot do that. The debate has now expired. I will put the question which is that Vote Maori Affairs stand part. 
Vote agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill 
In Committee 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave that we report progress on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill in order for the bill and its accompanying Supplementary Order Papers to be referred back to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You can seek leave that we report progress. I am not sure whether the additional instruction or the reason is in order. So all the member does is just— 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I seek leave that we report progress on this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought to report progress. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
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. 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I do want to take an early call on this first part of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill recognising that one of the key issues that will be considered by the House in Committee this afternoon is around the purpose clause and the changes that the Government is recommending in Supplementary Order Paper 100 in my name and just to take the opportunity to address some of the matters raised by Mr Robertson in his contribution. 
Just leading into that can I make the statement first off by way of introductory comments in my first contribution this afternoon that this is a bill that everybody—certainly as far as I have heard and all the major players—recognise is long overdue is much needed and is an important piece of legislation to fill a gap in our framework that has been in place for some years and that the previous Government did not see fit to do anything about in its time in the House. We have come in and recognised that this is important legislation that fills a gap in the framework and it does need to be passed. My concern is about the continual steps made by the Opposition to defer the passage of this bill rather than actually have to make a call on it and form a coherent view. That is pretty consistent with its current position which is a reluctance to take a stand and an inability to address the clear divisions in its own caucus about whether or not it supports mining and whether or not it supports any activity in this space. Rather than form a coherent position rather than vote for a bill that it may want to vote for politically or vote against a bill that it knows it cannot justify its option is just to play for touch and try to come up with some procedural reason to see yet more delay come into this and more time without this environmental protection which everyone agrees is necessary in place. 
In that respect it is interesting to see that after the announcement of my Supplementary Order Paper we have had the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment come out in strong support of the passage of this legislation saying she is happy with the form of the legislation and she has called for it to be passed into law. She has called for it to be passed into law: the law is needed she thinks it is in a good position and she has called for it to be passed. I think that speaks volumes and the fact that the Labour Opposition is still unwilling to support it still unwilling to see this legislation put in place speaks more about the position it is in. At least the Green Party knows what it is opposed to. We do not have any surprise at the fact that the Green Party is opposed but at least it is prepared to take a stance rather than to simply political point-score and try to kick for touch. 
 I want to comment on the changes to the purpose clause which is in this part of the bill and on Supplementary Order Paper 100 which is in my name and which seeks to change it. We have decided that it makes better sense to have a purpose clause incorporating the principle of sustainable management. I have talked in public and made comments around the reasons we have done that and I want to repeat that here and now for the sake of the Committee. The changes are reflecting the fact that we do see considerable benefit for all stakeholders in having a regime of sustainable management that is well defined in case law that parties do understand and that importantly provides a consistency of approach between matters within the 12-mile limit and those outside that limit between the 12 and 200-mile limit. We can certainly see benefit in applications that will have impact on both sides of that 12-mile limit by having some consistency of approach. 
In that respect I want to comment on and respond to Mr Robertson’s allegations that although we have adopted what is a cousin of section 5 of the Resource Management Act there is in this legislation no equivalent of section 6 of the Resource Management Act which guides decision makers in carrying out their functions. In fact Mr Robertson is quite wrong. I direct him to clause 59 of the bill which does exactly that. Although that is not in this part I address it here because of the comments and concerns of Mr Robertson about the lack of an equivalent of section 6 of the Resource Management Act. Clause 59 of this bill does exactly that. It lists the principles that decision makers are to take into account and have regard to when they are making decisions in respect of this bill. In that way it absolutely mirrors the purpose of section 6 of the Resource Management Act in terms of its provision of information to decision makers for them to take into account. 
The other comment that I wanted to make in this early contribution is simply to reiterate once again that there are clear statements that the bill is compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and our obligations under it. Opposition members insist on trying to take a clause by clause look or a part by part look at those obligations. They are holistic obligations. They must be given effect to as a whole. They specifically enable sovereign States to make arrangements for using the economic resources in that zone in a balancing provision. That is exactly what this bill does and that is why it has been cleared as compliant with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and our other international obligations. So to continue with the line that suggests that it is not compliant is simply not correct and it is not borne out by the information from our foreign agencies that are in charge of monitoring our obligations under those international conventions. 
The bill is an absolutely essential piece of environmental legislation. It is long overdue. The National-led Government is committing to getting it passed. We would call on other parties in this Chamber that genuinely do want to see an increase of protection in the exclusive economic zone to work with us to see it brought into law. We thank those parties that have given support. We look forward to hearing the rest of the debate this afternoon. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I also would like to put on record how disappointed I am that the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill was not referred back to the Local Government and Environment Committee so that Supplementary Order Paper 100 could be fully considered because it is significant and it does make significant changes. It is not the positive step that the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment is claiming it is. In fact when we went through the Supplementary Order Paper clause by clause what was very clear was that the Supplementary Order Paper actually takes the bill backwards considerably. The bill should go back to the select committee. 
I want to address some of the Minister’s comments on the purpose clause of the bill because it does not meet the test of our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We open ourselves up to a very real risk of legal challenges which will of course be funded by the New Zealand taxpayer in terms of their defence if we do not get this right. There is a very simple way we could have got it right: put the wording of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea into the purpose clause of the bill. That is what other countries have done. If we use the term “preserve and protect the marine environment” in the purpose clause of the bill then it removes any uncertainty that we are not consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. And if we have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which we have then why would we oppose using the same language as the convention? It does not make sense.  
If we agree with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which we must do because we ratified it then using the language of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea should not be something the Government opposes unless of course it thinks that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is far too restrictive and might stop some of the oil and gas exploration that it has planned from going ahead which is the only plan the Government has for the economy.  
The Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment is a lawyer. She knows that this could have removed an awful lot of legal uncertainty. Instead she has decided that she is just going to wing it and take the risk. I want to read to the Minister Part 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. There is a suite of provisions there. The Minister is very fond of saying that there are a whole lot of things under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that they all have to be taken into context. Well article 192 says: “States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.” That is not qualified in any way. Nowhere does it say “unless this” or “unless that”. Nowhere is there a provision that overrides that. It says we have an obligation—an obligation—to protect and preserve the marine environment. Article 193 provides that the right to exploit natural resources must—must—be in accordance with the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment. It could not be more clear. 
So although the Minister has come up with a clause from the Resource Management Act that is better than the one that is in the bill at the end of the day it still does not get us over the line. It does not matter actually how close we get to that line; if we are not over it then we are in breach of our international obligations. We are in breach of those international obligations and that is what the Labour Party has been concerned about from the first reading of this piece of legislation. 
I do not know how the Minister can continue to claim that because she has aligned the purpose clause with the Resource Management Act that somehow meets our international obligations. The Resource Management Act does not have to be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Minister. Just because it is consistent with the Resource Management Act does not make it consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 
Hon Amy Adams 
: It was anyway. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Sorry? 
Hon Amy Adams 
: It was anyway. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It was not consistent. Instead of having this to-ing and fro-ing why would we not provide absolute certainty and use the language of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? Why would we not use the language “preserve and protect the marine environment.”? Then we would not have to worry about it. We have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea so obviously we agree with that so why would we not just use it and then we do not even have to have this argument any more?  
The reason we are not going to use it is that the Minister well knows—and as one of the energy companies told us when it came to the select committee—they like this because it is intended to be more permissive than the Resource Management Act. That is what the energy company told us and that is the reason that the purpose clause is deliberately not consistent with our international conventions. 
I want to talk about the changes to clause 11 in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. This is a clause around our international obligations. When the bill came back from the Local Government and Environment Committee we strengthened this clause significantly. We were clear. We said that this Act must be interpreted under various international conventions relating to the marine environment including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity. We thought that made it quite clear that everything in the bill was meant to be and intended to be consistent with our international obligations. 
Well this has now been changed. Clause 11 in Supplementary Order Paper 100 now reads: “This Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligation …”. In other words we are not quite there yet—we are not quite there yet. We are continuing to implement our obligations but we do not want to say that it does implement our obligations because that would be a much tougher test and it would be interpreted differently. 
There is a piece in the explanatory note of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 that I think was particularly interesting as well. When she talked about clause 11 her explanation was: “… which provides for the Act to be interpreted under various international conventions is replaced. New clause 11 records that the Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s international obligations”—and this is the interesting bit—“so that a decision-maker under the Act does not need to look beyond the Act to be sure that he or she is complying with those obligations.” Otherwise the people who are implementing this piece of legislation can ignore the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea can ignore the convention on biodiversity because the new clause 11 states that they do not have to give any regard to our international obligations. They merely need to give regard to this piece of legislation which as I said no longer says that this Act must be interpreted in accordance with our international obligations. It simply says that it is continuing along the pathway of maybe one day getting somewhere close to implementing and meeting the tests under our various international obligations. 
I find it astonishing that the Minister can continue to claim that this piece of legislation is in accordance with the international obligations when it clearly is not. Although the concept of sustainable management is a good one it is disappointing that throughout the rest of the bill where we would have liked to see more consistency with the Resource Management Act the one part of the bill that is purposeful where we were not calling for the same language as the Resource Management Act is the one where she has actually done it. And then everywhere else in the bill where we have said “Please use the language of the RMA.” she has completely ignored it. 
The purpose clause must be consistent with our international obligations and it is not—it is not; it is quite clear that it is not. We have a right to exploit the resources in our exclusive economic zone but that right comes with a duty and an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. That is not a balance—as the Government was talking about before. That is not the language that we have in there now. Where is the language that states that we understand under this legislation that there is an obligation a duty to protect and preserve the marine environment? If the National Government thinks that this piece of legislation does do that then why would they leave so much uncertainty? Why would they not just put that language in the legislation so that we can be in no doubt that the purpose of this legislation is to protect and preserve the marine environment? There is only one reason why you would not use that wording and it is because you do not want— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —sorry Mr Chair—the Government does not want to protect and preserve the marine environment. That is the only reason—the only reason you would not do something so simple. It is because you do not want that to be the outcome of this piece of legislation—that is the only reason. It would be nice if one of the National members would be honest enough to actually say that in the course of this debate. 
Yes I agree with the Minister—we need legislation in place. But at the same time we do not need to be going out there and ramping up oil and gas exploration before this bill is passed. It is not a good enough argument to say: “Oh because all this stuff is going ahead we just need to pass any old piece of legislation.” Maybe we could pass good legislation and then once the protection is in place go ahead with the oil and gas exploration. That would seem to be a sensible way of doing it instead of putting the cart before the horse and allowing the gates to open. We are going to have some very interesting debates on the transitional provisions around this piece of legislation which really have opened the gates to completely allowing exploration to go ahead with no marine consent and no input. We look forward to that debate. 
It is really disappointing that the Minister was not prepared to work with the members of the Labour Party the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party who came to her and met with her saying we need to find a compromise on the purpose clause and on this piece of legislation because it is too important. Instead the Minister dumped the Supplementary Order Paper at a meeting with Grant Robertson sitting next to her and Eugenie Sage—they had no idea it was coming. She did not give us the courtesy of saying: “Look I’ve taken on board what we’ve said in the meeting. I’m going to release an SOP. Here’s basically what it does.” This is too important to be a piece of legislation where the pendulum swings between Governments. We could have found a compromise. We were not that far away. It is a shame we did not do it at the select committee but we were shut down at every point at the select committee when we tried to get these changes. It was clear that it was just going to be the Government’s way or no way at all. 
Unfortunately the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee although I appreciate all the work she put into it did not realise she had a tied vote on the committee which involved a lot of cleaning up in the Supplementary Order Paper to clean up what happened to the bill because of the way it ended up having to be voted on because the process was not clearly laid out beforehand. But we could have come to an agreement on the purpose clause that had the intention of preserving and protecting the marine environment. We could have got there and it is a shame that the Government rejected that offer. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am delighted to be here to support the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill in its Committee stage. I am delighted to support the bill because up until now there has been absolutely no framework to manage the environmental effects of activities in the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf. That means no legislation to manage seabed mining no legislation to manage the platforms for oil and gas exploration and no legislation for drilling marine farming energy generation or carbon capture and storage. As the marine area covered by this bill is 20 times the size of the land mass of New Zealand this legislation is well overdue. I think it is really interesting listening to the Labour members say they are not going to support the bill because between 1999 and 2008 under Labour there were 46 wells drilled with no legislation to monitor the activities and no legislation to protect the environment. 
I was really pleased to hear from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment this week who welcomed the changes to this bill. She said she is satisfied that the legislation will provide environmental protections for our oceans. Obviously Labour does not read the press releases. Obviously Labour does not follow what the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says. She also congratulated the Government on bringing this legislation to Parliament on listening to others and on carrying on a conversation with environmentalists. 
I would like to thank our Ministers. I would firstly like to thank our ex - Minister for the Environment the Hon Nick Smith for promoting this legislation and our present Minister the Hon Amy Adams for getting this legislation through the House. 
We are all aware as New Zealanders how our country is shaped by the oceans around it. We have one of the largest exclusive economic zones in the world. Most New Zealanders live close to it and they want to protect our oceans. We enjoy our coastal oceans. And although we mostly know those beaches and the things near us and focus on those we are also committed to looking after the wider oceans and the resources beyond to the exclusive economic zone which goes past the 12 nautical miles up to 200 miles out to sea. The exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf are ours under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Because they are ours under this legislation we have both rights and responsibilities. We have the right to manage and to use the resources in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf but we also have the responsibilities to protect and conserve the marine environment and this is exactly what this legislation will enable. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on this bill. We made a large number of changes. The issues we were most interested in in Part 1 were the purpose clause of the bill and whether the bill met with our international obligations. The original purpose of the bill was based on the principle of balance—the balance between looking after the environment and managing our economy. But the Minister has since revised that purpose in her Supplementary Order Paper 100 and the purpose is now “to promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf.” Of course this is in line with the Resource Management Act which is the management tool that looks after that first 12 nautical miles of our coastal waters so it makes sense to use that for the greater exclusive economic zone. It will create better consistency in environmental regulations for the different areas of the ocean and will be particularly useful for any activities that span both the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone beyond 12 nautical miles. 
These changes will also please many of our submitters as they were concerned that as the bill attempted to balance the economy and the environment the environment might miss out. That is not what we want. Also the concept of sustainable management is well defined in domestic law and it has been used for about 20 years in Resource Management Act case law so people understand the terminology and will be able to use it freely. The new purpose will ensure that any economic activities in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf will be sustainable and will be done in such a way as to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the environment. 
I would like to take just a short call to talk about our international obligations. There was significant debate about whether the bill would meet our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and also some submitters felt that it was a bit restrictive to use only that legislation. They suggested and we did actually take their suggestion to add the Convention on Biological Diversity. We sought advice and we were assured that the bill did meet our obligations under international law. But the Legislation Advisory Committee advised us not to allow our international obligations to become an interpretations tool because that would risk the bill becoming subject to international obligations not considered by our Parliament. However we did include the Convention on Biological Diversity. Under the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 the text is amended. Both the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1992 and the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992 are included and our commitment to both these obligations are clarified by saying that “This Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations … relating to the marine environment” under these conventions and everybody—except perhaps Moana Mackey—feels that this fulfils our obligations and is the right piece of language for New Zealand. 
I believe that the amendments made to the original bill improve it significantly and I would like to thank all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work they did to improve the bill. I would like to thank the Green Party for its input and also the Labour Party because there were times that we got a better outcome because of that discussion. 
Just before I go I would like to put an answer to Grant Robertson’s concerns. This bill is predicated on caution. Because of the size of the exclusive economic zone and the unknown quantities of our waters and because new emerging technologies are involved it seeks to favour caution and environmental protection. As a default position all activities are discretionary unless they are classified as permitted so until we have more knowledge each activity will be considered with a case by case approach. I think that is appropriate and I think that should put Mr Robertson’s fears to rest. Thank you. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I rise to take a call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill—the “Exclusive Economic Zone Drilling Bill” as I call it. It is disappointing that we are having this debate now. I think that the Green Party and Labour Party were quite earnest in their desire to see this bill go back to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I do not think it was a matter of playing politics with this bill; it is just the scope of the amendments put forward by the Minister for the Environment on Supplementary Order Paper 100.  
I have asked the Minister whether we could vote clause by clause because as I will explain in my call today some of the amendments we support and some we do not. We would like to be able to vote for the ones that we do support. But the Minister said that she would not support that because the Supplementary Order Paper is so long and there are so many clauses being amended. If it is so large if there are so many clauses being amended what is the harm of taking it back to the select committee to have more investigation and to actually get a robust solid bill coming out of the committee? 
 What I think everyone in this House wants to see is a good bill come out of this House. No party in this Parliament wants to see the current legislative regulatory vacuum that occurs in our exclusive economic zone. By means of introduction to the people listening on telly and in the gallery today what this bill does is set up a regime for our exclusive economic zone between the 12 and 200 nautical miles. It is a place where there has not been a great deal of rules or a framework through which you can apply for consents. 
The Green Party since 1988—the earliest reference I can find—when we first entered Parliament has been calling for comprehensive oceans legislation because there has been a huge gap. It is critical that this Parliament gets it right. A number of players be they oil drillers or conservationists want certainty. They want to know what the rules are. They want to know that the rules are not going to change and that the carpet will not be pulled from beneath them. What everyone wants is a robust bill that gets turned into law that we can all agree on. 
What we want is something like the Resource Management Act which has been an enduring framework. It is important to get it right because as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Nicky Wagner pointed out we have a very large exclusive economic zone the fifth-largest in the world. It is an amazing environment where I think Kiwis take our sustenance from—our spiritual sustenance and obviously our physical sustenance with our kai moana. It is where we get our economic sustenance from. You know our $20 billion “clean green” brand in part comes from our ocean environment. It is where our tourism our aquaculture and our fisheries industries are thriving. The simple fact is that Kiwis love our environment. 
Obviously people want to explore and exploit the environment and that is why it is critical that we have this bill. So the Minister has come to Parliament with a huge number of amendments set out on her Supplementary Order Paper. I want to touch on this before going into a little detail on four of those points. The first thing is that we were earnest and up front with our desire to take this bill back to the select committee. I am hoping that the Minister will consider it. I understand that leave was sought but the Committee is the master of its own destiny. The Committee might wish to consider putting that motion again. After all what we want to see is a good law. 
We think that the process around those amendments was less than desirable. The Opposition parties went to the Minister off our own bats to try to negotiate in good faith. We had a good meeting and it is unfortunate that these amendments were literally sort of slammed on the Table or uploaded to the website with no notice. The Minister used what I call the Olympic strategy because what we have seen is a number of quite significant announcements over the course of the Olympics from Maui’s dolphins to sea lions to the seismic regulations. What the Government has done is announce a raft of top-level changes with its amendments but it did not actually alert the public or Parliament to the rest of the amendments. It is not just the five amendments that were highlighted in the press release. We are talking about pages and pages of various amendments. 
So while the Government was trying to spin the amendments as trying to strengthen the bill from an environmental perspective I chuckled at the headline in the  
National Business Review  
that said the Government was buckling to Green pressure. What we know I think is that it is simply spin. It is simply spin from this Government. There are some amendments we can agree with and a whole host that we do not but ultimately we are not seeing a better bill coming out. We are not seeing a more robust enduring solution for this vexed problem which has faced numerous Parliaments. 
The first significant amendment is to clause 10 the purpose clause. We endorse the change we have seen here which is in the language “sustainable management” but we think we should have gone a bit further. We take our hats off to the Minister because she got rid of that flawed “balanced” ideology as I put it. What I think the Government is talking about when it talks about balance is that you can trade off a little bit of environmental degradation for a little bit of profit. The flip side of that is that you can trade off a whole host of environmental degradation if there is a profit in it. 
What we know about New Zealand is that in our oil industry we have got the fourth-lowest Government royalty and tax rates for what we are getting. It is not the Kiwi economy that is benefiting on the whole; it is those foreign-owned companies meaning that New Zealand is facing 100 percent of the environmental risk for the fourth-lowest royalty plus tax rate in the world. It also means that there are numerous tax exemptions that there are hardly any jobs for Kiwis and that the profits are going offshore. We reject what we consider the flawed ideology around “balance”. We take our hats off to the Minister in that she has removed it. But she has gone only halfway because we have got those critical words “sustainable management” in clause 10 the purpose clause but what we do not have is the rest of it. 
The Government I think has been a bit confused about how close or distant it wants to get to the Resource Management Act. Some days Government members talk about it as if they do not want anything in the exclusive economic zone bill to be related to it and then on other days they want it to be strengthened to be more like the Resource Management Act. This comes with a whole host of problems because in the area inside 12 nautical miles one regime applies with one set of rules and in the area beyond 12 nautical miles another regime applies with a different set of rules. 
The Minister has gone part of the way with the changing of the purpose clause to include “sustainable management”. What we do not have are the other key words from the Resource Management Act. The current amendment that the Minister is proposing uses the words “take into account” in respect of certain matters. The key words from the Resource Management Act of course are to “recognise and provide for”. What we are going to see is the courts essentially deciding this and I think the courts are going to have a significant power. 
I want to touch on the international negotiations because what we are seeing here is a deliberate weakening of clause 11 “International obligations”. The committee which all parties supported wanted to have the word “consistent” in there. I think that we should have gone stronger and said: “This bill will be interpreted consistently with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS”. This is critical because this is how we get the right—the responsibility—to use and enjoy our exclusive economic zone. It is clear that we have international obligations. 
The Minister is emphatic that the current legislation—the bill in front of us and her amendments—is consistent but has the Minister got an updated legal opinion on the changes? What we are seeing is clause 11 “International obligations” actually changing and we are seeing the purpose clause and a whole host of other changes. So if the Minister could table that new legal opinion I think that would be beneficial to the Committee. 
The fact is that many commentators from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to legal experts to the Opposition parties do not think the legislation will be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I think it is clear that we should be aiming to do this. I think the Government is scared of being taken to court essentially over the interpretation. You know if you think it is consistent with the convention you should say so. We should say: “This Act will be interpreted consistently with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” 
The Minister also touched on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s support. Obviously the commissioner has come out in support but I think the Minister is taking it a bit far and may be putting words in the commissioner’s mouth when she gushes over the support for this bill. I think the commissioner like the Green Party wants to see something out there in the exclusive economic zone because we have not had anything. But the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment quite rightly says she has a number of concerns with the bill. The key question is that this still is not the overarching oceans framework that her office and numerous other commentators have been calling for. Where is the conservation side? Where is the spatial planning side? What we are talking about is a consenting regime. We are not talking about a management regime and this is what we need because we have got a gigantic ocean space yet we know so little about it. 
I looked into the research done by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research over the decades. We still know so little about the marine environment—what is down there in the benthic and the atrophic environments. We know so little about it yet we are about to go and exploit it. I understand that soon we are expecting a consent to be lodged for ironsand mining which could involve 300 million tonnes of sand being moved off the west coast of the North Island. We are talking about Chatham Rock Phosphate’s proposal to dig up I understand 3000 square kilometres over the lifetime of the resource on the ocean floor. 
These are huge questions and with no information we think we should actively be managing our marine environment but this is not what we see. What we are seeing is an increasing strengthening in a few respects but on the whole we are seeing a bill that is still fundamentally flawed—in fact being taken backwards. I will be debating this in the debate on later parts because this is where the transition measures and the penalties come from. But basically what we are seeing is a missed opportunity from this Parliament a missed opportunity from this Government and a missed opportunity from this Minister who could have engaged a lot better. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. The member who just resumed his seat Gareth Hughes referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I think it is probably worth having a look at the full press release made by Dr Jan Wright who has “welcomed the changes to the Exclusive Economic Zone Bill made by the Government. The Bill is intended to regulate activities in the EEZ including deepwater oil exploration and iron sand prospecting. Dr Wright says she is satisfied that the legislation will provide significant protection to New Zealand’s EEZ.” So that comes directly from the website of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. It is one of two press releases that the parliamentary commissioner put out very recently acknowledging the good work of the Minister for the Environment the Hon Amy Adams in recognising that through the select committee process some improvements can and should be made to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. You know hats off to Amy Adams. She has listened and she has made some very constructive changes. 
I also want to pick up on the point made by one of the Labour members who bemoaned the fact that Supplementary Order Paper 100 was something like 14 pages long and contained an awful lot of material. I would just like— 
Grant Robertson 
: It was me. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well if you have a read of the Supplementary Order Paper you will recognise that there are really three substantive— 
Moana Mackey 
: You haven’t read it. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Look at the creases in the paper see—look at the creases in the paper. If those members had—like I and my colleagues—looked at that Supplementary Order Paper they would have recognised that there are three key changes. 
The first amends the purpose of the bill to incorporate the concept of sustainable management which is similar to the Resource Management Act. I am going to pick up on that theme maybe later in this speech or in other contributions. It also increases the maximum penalties for companies from $600000 through to $10 million. This again was another hotly discussed issue within the Local Government and Environment Committee. It clarifies that the transitional period will enable planned activities to proceed during the 2013-14 season and also provides a statutory time frame of about 6 months for marine consent processes. Many of the other issues noted in the Supplementary Order Paper are tidying up and formatting issues associated with the bill. 
I just want to pick up on the first point I made about sustainable management and I just want to read from the bill’s commentary: “Labour would also like to see more consistency between [the exclusive economic zone] regime and the RMA. … Labour believes that better alignment of the two regimes would provide more certainty for industry and local government as well as reassurance for the general public regarding the protection of the marine environment. The concept”—and I think this is the interesting part—“of ‘sustainable economic development’ is well understood under the RMA and should be carried through into this regime.” That is really interesting. It gives a tick I think as my colleague says for the concept of sustainable economic development. 
So when I pick up the Supplementary Order Paper and have a look at the amendment to clause 10 it says: “Purpose—(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf.” So from that I am assuming that having read Labour’s minority report in the bill which is calling for the concept of sustainable economic development and then picking up the Supplementary Order Paper which in the amendment to clause 10 talks about sustainable management I would have thought that Grant Robertson might be well pleased. 
So why is it that Grant Robertson and Moana Mackey want to send this back into the wilderness and not actually take a stand and make a call on this legislation? Do you know why? It is because they do not want any regulation in the exclusive economic zone. They want to continue the legacy of their 9 years while they were in Government when there was a regulatory gap which they were happy with regarding deep-sea drilling in their tenure of Parliament. If they were so happy—[ 
Bell rung 
] Just to finish off that point it seems that Labour members want the concept of sustainable economic development. It has been picked up in the Supplementary Order Paper. They are still not happy. Why are they not happy? They would prefer to have a regulatory vacuum rather than some good legislation. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I just want first of all to congratulate the Minister for the Environment. I think some fair points have been made in the debate and I think there is general agreement that her proposed clause 10 in Supplementary Order Paper 100 is better than where we started. I think it is important to concede that right up front. Labour voted against the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill at the first reading for the particular reason that specifically as we said in the first reading debate we had real concerns about the purpose clause. It was absolutely inadequate for the sort of exercise that this bill is designed to deal with. So the Minister has gone some way to try to remedy that and I want to express and put on record appreciation for that as have previous speakers in the debate. I understand that that will not have been an easy exercise because as was said in the first reading debate the problem with this bill is it is too much of a developers’ charter and not enough of a bill that has regard to the preciousness of our environment. 
I just want in that regard to say a few words about the importance of a purpose clause. Other speakers have noted that there is likely to be litigation around this legislation. Of course there will be. It involves natural resources it involves important economic considerations and it will involve powerful economic actors. They will have recourse to the courts for the interpretation and declaration of their rights so it is important that we start right up front with a very clear purpose clause to guide the courts as to the interpretation of the rest of the Act. 
We have already seen with the Environmental Protection Authority Act the sort of problem that Labour still has with this bill. In that particular piece of legislation there was a failure on the part of the Minister’s predecessor to expressly provide in the purpose clause that the purpose of the Environmental Protection Authority should actually be to protect the environment. The major defect of that bill—that Act as it now is—continues to be that there is no express requirement that its sections be interpreted with that prime obligation in mind. 
I think we need to think quite carefully about what we are doing here as a Committee because the public are entitled I think to look at legislation and to expect its contents to at least bear some relationship to its title. Well clearly in the case of the Environmental Protection Authority Act that is a case where this Parliament under this Government failed. I do not want to see Parliament fail again to do that in respect of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. 
The reason that I say we still are failing—notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has I accept gone some way to try to take into account Opposition concerns—is the issue that was raised by previous speakers which is the problem of inconsistency with our international obligations. You know we can pretend as much as we like in this Committee that we have been advised that it is consistent. We can say that black and blue but any reading of the treaty and then any reading of the clauses that are now reproduced in the proposed purpose clause show that there is still a major inconsistency. The Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment shakes her head. I hope she gets up and addresses this point and I hope that when she does so she actually has a copy of the treaty provisions in front of her because the basic problem we still have here is the failure to incorporate in the legislation and in the purpose clause the fundamental part of the treaty obligation which is about preserving and protecting the marine environment. It is not about promoting the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. It is about preserving and protecting. 
I have to ask the Minister because I know that she was a respected lawyer in practice why on earth we would set up this dichotomy for the courts so that they have the treaty provision on one hand and the purpose clause on the other being inconsistent. What is to guide the courts when they consider the principles that they ought to observe in considering any ambiguity in the rest of the text of the Act? The Minister knows that that is going to be a problem going forward with the text that she has proposed. 
That is why Grant Robertson has put forward his preferred version of clause 10 in Supplementary Order Paper 97. There is a very careful attempt here to legislate consistently with New Zealand’s international obligations. What he has done in subclause (1) is to very clearly say: “The purpose of the Act is to protect and preserve the environment while providing for sustainable economic development in the exclusive economic zone …”. Why on earth would we not do that? Why on earth would we not take the primary treaty provision and accept in the primary purpose clause in the legislation that it ought to be given prominence and then say what else wants to be done? As I said I am expressing gratitude to the Minister for having come some way but I just cannot see on the face of the competing Supplementary Order Papers why on a logical comparison we would not prefer the approach that is contended for by Grant Robertson. 
 The second issue around general interpretation relates to the Minister’s suggestion for new clause 11 in Supplementary Order Paper 100. We heard a frankly extraordinary contribution from the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee earlier where I think what she said—what she seemed to think the officials had advised her—was that if Parliament inserted references to the treaties then the courts would not be able to consider the clauses of those treaties; they would be able consider only the terms of the bill. I think that is what she said. We all had a little giggle including the Minister in the chair because clearly that is entirely wrong. 
But actually looking at what is intended in the proposed new clause 11 first of all the good thing is that yes there ought to be reference to the implementation of our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and I welcome the inclusion also of a reference to the Convention on Biological Diversity. That was a good move a good suggestion from the committee and it is great to see the Minister taking it up. But what does this mean: “This Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations …”? I mean which is it? When the court looks at this provision if—God forbid—it is actually enacted then what is the court to make of it? “Oh goodness me I wonder whether this provision is intended to continue an obligation to which we have already accepted an international obligation or are we now enabling that obligation?”. Surely if we have signed the treaty we accept that we are a party to it and it is not a question of enabling or continuing but actually being clear in the text of the statute which one it is. I really hope that the Minister will clarify that point for the Committee. I see she has just asked one of the officials a question; I hope it is about that. 
The final point that I just wanted to make in this call relates to a clause in Part 1A that will be influenced by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. That is the insertion of clause 17A. This deals with planned petroleum activities and essentially declares that they can continue. The problem here is that planned petroleum activities are very different from actual ongoing activities. I think we do have to hear from the Minister as to why this particular means for transition is the one that she thinks the Committee ought to adopt because it does not actually seem either consistent with principle or consistent with the protection obligations that we all know New Zealand is party to. 
Just a word about process. Again without detracting from my earlier comments praising the Minister for being willing to come some way from the extremism that we saw from Dr Smith in the original draft of this bill which was simply a developers’ charter for the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf we do have a process issue that cannot be ignored. We have a select committee system in our Parliament for good reason. I have sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I sat on it this morning for an hour or two and it is a good committee. It does its level best to make legislation before it better but to drop a 16-page Supplementary Order Paper at the stage of the Committee of the whole House in respect of legislation that is as important as this is simply not good procedure. I think the Minister should refer it back to the select committee. 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I do want to take a call just to respond to a couple of the issues that have been raised by a number of speakers around clause 11 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and the international obligations. I will certainly come to that. 
Let me just start though by pointing out to the last speaker Charles Chauvel in respect of his concerns around clause 17 that clause 17 is not in Part 1 of the bill. It sits in Part 1A which we will be debating next. So I am more than happy for him to return and make a contribution on that part and we can address that there. 
Regarding clause 11 of the bill and the wording of the international obligations it is very valid that the Committee consider this carefully because it is an important part of the bill. But I want to get a few things on record. The first of those is that simply repeating in Opposition contributions to the debate that it is not consistent does not take us any further. What I have said repeatedly is that the advice that we have from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade which is after all New Zealand’s agency that has the responsibility for understanding and monitoring our compliance with our international obligations has repeatedly made it very clear both to the Local Government and Environment Committee and to me that the bill—actually before the changes and certainly again with them—complies with our international obligations in all respects. The point that the Committee has to take into account as I have said repeatedly is that the matter has to be looked at holistically. 
The issue is that part 12 of the convention itself although an important part of the convention must be read in the context of the rest of the convention the majority of which addresses use of the oceans including exploitation of living and non-living resources marine research and navigation. In relation to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the use of the oceans particular note should be made of articles 56 and 77 which explicitly refer to a coastal State’s sovereign right to explore and exploit the natural resources in its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. 
The view goes on to express the fact that it is the obligation of States in the light of particular circumstances to attempt to strike an appropriate and reasonable balance between all of the interests. That is exactly what the very nature of this bill does. We had clear advice to the committee and we have clear advice through me to this Committee from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s legal team that that is what the bill does. We had a legal submission to the select committee I understand from Simpson Grierson that made the same point. So if the Opposition wants to continue to assert that the bill does not meet the obligations then it should find a legally qualified person who is expert in this area to say so. Until then the information that we have put on the table has to be taken I think at face value. 
I want to also talk about the comments that have been made around the wording on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in respect of clause 11 which is—let me just flick to that page quickly—“continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations”. A number of members have raised concerns about that wording. I simply point out to those members that it is a very well-used expression in this Chamber and exists already in this space in the Maritime Transport Act the Fisheries Act and the Marine Mammals Protection Act amongst others. So we are not talking about some new way of doing things. This is an established way of reflecting New Zealand’s international obligations. I suggest that those members consider the framework that already exists in this House and the appropriateness of it. 
I further want to make the point that actually the reason that concern was raised around the initial drafting of clause 11 and the reason we have not done what some members are suggesting which is simply put the words automatically into this bill actually comes in large part from the submission or is certainly reflected in the view of the submission of the Legislation Advisory Committee—which is at the end of the day the expert on legislation and presents from a very unbiased objective and highly respected view—that to do that would be entirely inappropriate. It made the point that it is not appropriate to build in these sorts of conventions and interpretation aids. 
The purpose of these obligations and the way to approach them is to ensure that we set up frameworks in our own domestic legislation as stand-alone frameworks that in and of themselves give effect to our obligations. That is what this bill does. That is what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has confirmed it does. That is what the legal advice to the committee confirmed was the case. So I say to Opposition members again that rather than just saying and continually repeating that it is inconsistent they should come up with someone who is prepared to say that and is an expert in these matters because the experts we have talked to who are in charge of this matter repeatedly say that this is the appropriate way to handle it. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has said it Simpson Grierson has said it and the Legislation Advisory Committee has said it. 
So I simply say to members that rather than continue to look for reasons to object to a bill that the members clearly simply do not want to pass they should put some meat on the bones of their submissions. We have done that. We have made the point as to why we are doing it. We have provided the evidence to back that up. Members opposite need to do the same rather than come up with more and more spurious reasons to simply not want to back this legislation. If they do not want to back the legislation Labour members should simply say that. Do not try to come up with unjustified obligations. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party also believes that this Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill should be referred back to the Local Government and Environment Committee because this 16-page Supplementary Order Paper includes quite sweeping changes. It includes inspection powers from the Search and Surveillance Act and changes to the Biosecurity Act in relation to the eradication of unwanted organisms and to the whole consenting regime for existing petroleum mining activities which are licensed under the Continental Shelf Act. 
It is good lawmaking when the select committee has an opportunity to consider changes of this scope in more detail because we like other members of the Opposition want this bill to be robust law we want it to be enduring but the way in which the process has occurred the fact that we have tried constructively to make amendments through giving the Minister for the Environment a number of Supplementary Order Papers last month only to have Supplementary Order Paper 100 dropped on us last Friday is not good lawmaking—putting these quite major changes that are in this Supplementary Order Paper in the legislation without it going back to select committee and without the select committee having had the benefit of seeing how the package as a whole works. 
Certainly this legislation is overdue. We do need to fill this major gap in our environmental management regime. The fact is that we do not have a consenting regime to regulate activities in the exclusive economic zone and in the extended continental shelf when this is the fifth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world so we certainly support the need for the legislation but it still has a number of flaws. The Minister with her announcement in the Supplementary Order Paper that we were getting rid of the balanced criteria that were in the last purpose clause and the proposed referral to the sustainable management provisions of the Resource Management Act has created the impression that there has been a move away from the pro-development bias of the bill as introduced. It certainly is more consistent with the Resource Management Act and it is certainly desirable to have that consistency of purpose between what is inside the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea and what is outside it. But I think there are a number of fish hooks and the bill is not as consistent with the Resource Management Act as the Minister and others on the Government side have implied. 
There is a fundamental difference between this bill and the Resource Management Act and that is that in the Resource Management Act there is a hierarchy of matters to be taken into account when decisions are made. There are matters of national importance that decision makers have to recognise and provide for whereas under the bill the matters that the decision makers take into account are all to be given equal weight with no emphasis on environmental protection and sustainability. So the priorities then conflict and there is no guidance for decision makers about the relative weight to be given to each of the matters. That will mean that there is much more likely to be a focus on short-term economic considerations because the financial benefits are so much easier to quantify than damage to a species or damage to a habitat. So it is this lack of a hierarchy to guide decision makers that is the critical difference between the bill and the Resource Management Act and the fact that there are no environmental bottom lines as there are in the Resource Management Act through section 6 and section 7. 
There is a real risk when you do not have those environmental bottom lines that decisions are quite subjective because it is just like a big washing machine where all these criteria come into play and there is no prioritisation of the most important factors. There is also a major difference here and a real risk that the sustainable management purpose will not have the weight that it has in the Resource Management Act because there is no equivalent in this bill to section 104 of the Resource Management Act which requires decision makers to have regard to various considerations subject to Part 2 of the Act. I would invite the Minister to comment when she next takes a call on whether this is a deliberate omission so that the bill means that she as Minister and the Environmental Protection Authority will not be required to make their decisions subject to the bill’s purpose in clause 10 or whether that was just a slip because the Supplementary Order Paper has come into play relatively late. 
There is Supplementary Order Paper 89 in my name which seeks to address some of these issues. It addresses the lack of environmental principles. It seeks to better implement the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—the convention requirement to preserve and protect the ocean environment before exploiting it commercially by including a set of environmental principles to help guide decision makers to help them prioritise. That would mean that they would be required to recognise and provide for a series of matters rather than just take them into account. So they put the emphasis on those matters. That would help us implement our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to preserve and protect the marine environment because the matters that are listed in this Supplementary Order Paper include maintaining the integrity of marine ecosystems protecting and preserving rare or fragile habitats and preserving and protecting threatened species—that those get given greater weight than they are given in the bill at the moment. We think that would then take a step forward to making the Act much more consistent with the Resource Management Act and the prioritisation and the hierarchy that you get in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act and giving that a similar prioritisation in this bill. Thank you. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Can I say that when this first came before the House New Zealand First did oppose it because we had concerns about clause 10 the purpose of the bill. We were one of the Opposition parties that lodged a minority report seeking a change to the bill because the previous wording very much talked about a balance between economic development and the environment and that is a very subjective word in terms of what is a balance. Is a balance fifty-fifty? Where is the balance and if the economic factors are at a certain level will they override the environmental ones? We are very pleased that the Minister for the Environment after a meeting with the delegation from the Opposition reviewed that and was able to see fit to change the wording of the purpose of the bill. As a result New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through the Committee stage and through to the third reading. 
 In supporting the bill New Zealand First firstly would like to say that we have always said that we will support economic development where it is environmentally sustainable. We would hope and expect in good faith that the changes the Government has agreed to in terms of the purpose of the bill and the Act when it comes into being will provide sufficient safeguards for the environment to ensure that the environment is basically of course the bottom line. In that respect we do want to see economic development in this country. New Zealand First has always said that we want to see economic development providing it is sustainable and in that manner. In terms of this bill we have to remember that we are sitting on the fifth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world with our 200-mile limit being potentially a very very valuable resource for this small nation of 4.5 million people. Therefore it is important that we do have a regime in place that will cover this. To not have this up until now and to have legislation that basically took into account only the 12-mile limit and left the vast majority of the seas out there within our zone really open to all sorts of interpretation was a big risk. New Zealand First certainly wants to see this enacted so that that risk can be closed off to the benefit of all. 
We also acknowledge all the submitters who came to the select committee the many very good organisations that made some very constructive suggestions—much of which has also been taken up in terms of some of the amendments by the Government—and in particular Dr Jan Wright the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. She gave us some very sound reasoning on a number of issues and again the Minister and the Government have taken up a number of those matters. = 
However there is still concern in parts of the Opposition in terms of some of the clauses and we can understand that. We know that there are some technical terms and some of the wording that could be considered to still be slightly ambiguous perhaps and could be slightly misconstrued if misinterpreted. So perhaps there should still be some opportunity for some discussion on some of those minor points but we are not going to die in a ditch about that. We are not going to stop this bill as a result but perhaps the Minister would still be mindful that if there is still any room for any minor considerations in regards to some of those other clauses then that would also be helpful and would show good faith again in terms of getting good support. We would hope at the end because this is such as important issue for this country that perhaps the whole of this Parliament can support this bill. At the end of the day when you have got this huge huge economic zone out there which is going to have a direct impact on all of our people in this country we would hope that we can have a collective buy-in from Parliament to try to do the very best by that economic zone. 
Can I also just point out that many of the aspirations in this bill have been things that New Zealand First has had long-held belief in in terms of what is required for our country. In terms of this we have always said through our manifesto that we would seek an urgent introduction of interim standards for drilling and exploratory work in New Zealand waters designed to meet New Zealand maritime conditions while more comprehensive standards are worked out. We also have stated in the past that we would have a requirement that all drilling exploration and extraction projects in New Zealand waters be subject to public consultation. Exploration must be subject to the public concerns being mitigated and again we expect that through this bill and by having this legislation in place this will be a platform to allow full and open public consultation on projects that are planned in the economic zone. 
We also however would sound a warning that we have always asked that we set up and train appropriate people and organisations for risk rapid response teams to deal with maritime environmental emergencies that can be deployed at short notice in New Zealand or abroad. I think that is something that this Parliament and this Government need to give further consideration to in the future. If we are going to see increased activity in our economic zone where potentially—and touch wood we would never see it happen—there could be a risk from some of the activities to our marine environment I think the very least we should ensure that we have is the appropriate response capabilities to deal with that. I think in the next year or two and perhaps as the economic situation improves we need to be mindful that New Zealand maybe has to beef up its maritime services and Maritime New Zealand capabilities to deal with any contingency that might arise. 
In closing can I just repeat that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill and we see great merit in it. I would like to just congratulate the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who were involved in this. I think we have been sitting on it for 4 or 5 months now. There has been a huge number of submissions. A large number of organisations individuals and people around New Zealand have submitted on it. It has been a very good exercise in terms of public consultation. It has also been a good exercise in alerting the Government to some of their concerns and in the Government responding to some of those concerns in an appropriate manner. As a result I think we have got a reasonably good level of legislation here which we can support. New Zealand First commends the bill to the Committee. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I want to start off by acknowledging the purpose of this bill and the amendments that the Minister for the Environment has brought to the Committee on Supplementary Order Paper 100. I want to acknowledge all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee—in particular our chair Nicky Wagner. 
I think there are some very clear differences between some parties around this bill. I think what we on this side of the Chamber have been very clear about when it comes to our environmental policy is that we are interested in a very good risk management framework. That is what this bill is about: reasoned sensible environmental policy based on good evidence and science. I think that part of my concern is that sometimes in this Parliament we do see emotion taking over. If we are serious about having some economic development in this country then I think we have got to be very clear about where the risks are. I think what we have managed to do with this bill—and I do again congratulate the Minister on her amendments—is really ensure that we do have that balance so that we have clear penalties and we see that change in penalties from $600000 to $10 million in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. Also we need to ensure that we have a very good focus on sustainable management and now that is reflected in the purpose statement. 
 I also think it is really important to remember that one of the reasons why we are here is that there is a regulatory gap. I was very pleased to see the statement from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment saying she congratulates this bill coming to the House and she congratulates the fact that there has been a wider conversation about it. We know there is a regulatory gap and we know that Parliament needs to do something and that is why we are here. I think we have actually managed to end up with a pretty reasonable compromise that puts a very important risk management framework in place which enables us to look at some of those economic development opportunities but also enables us to protect our environment. I think the changes that have been made in Supplementary Order Paper 100 are very important. 
I also want to address just one particular aspect of Part 1—there will be an opportunity in other parts of the debate to deal with other aspects of the bill—and it is around the role of the Environmental Protection Authority. In this Parliament we pass legislation and we give confidence to certain institutions. I think that is where I would challenge the Green Party because I think there have been a few statements that have been made around the role of the Environmental Protection Authority. We just want to be very clear that we have confidence in the Environmental Protection Authority and we do have faith in its ability and in its decision makers to make broad judgment on the matters that are reflected within clause 59 of the bill. I think we just need to be clear that we do have that faith and we do not see it as appropriate that as parliamentarians we fetter the discretion that we have given the authority under an Act of Parliament. I think a really important point is that there is a role for parliamentarians in setting out that overall framework from an environmental management perspective but actually as to the detail of particular decisions we need to ensure that we give that confidence to those institutions that we put in place. We have confidence in the Environmental Protection Authority and we have faith in its overall broad judgment and that is why we set up the Environmental Protection Authority under this Government. 
We have got a pretty good record when it comes to environmental management. We have done massive reform in terms of the Resource Management Act. We have put in things like the Environmental Protection Authority. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on cleaning up our rivers. This is just another piece of reform that this Government has undertaken. I think it is really important as well that it is actually reform around our oceans because we know there has been a gap. 
I congratulate this bill and I congratulate all the people who have worked on it. I think we have come to a really sensible balance that is going to not only protect our oceans but also ensure that we can potentially have a higher standard of living in this country. Thank you. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to make a contribution in the Committee stage of Part 1 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. Just picking up on the previous speaker Nikki Kaye where she mentioned about the attempt at a balance being made with this bill that is exactly the language that has been removed from the purpose clause. We acknowledge the actions of the Minister for the Environment and her officials in attempting to address what were two main issues I guess: firstly the failure of the bill to actually meet the obligations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and secondly bringing greater alignment with the Resource Management Act. 
There has been an attempt obviously to bring greater alignment with the Resource Management Act but it is arguable that the amendment to clause 10 “Purpose” does not go far enough in making sure that we meet our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in making sure that the preservation and protection of the marine environment is paramount. I know that this has been debated quite a lot in this Committee stage but I just wanted to express our disappointment as well that we could not give further consideration to these amendments which were hastily pushed into Supplementary Order Paper 100 at the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
I would like to use my opportunity in this call to talk in support of two Supplementary Order Papers. The first is in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia and that Supplementary Order Paper 96 seeks to amend clause 14 the Treaty of Waitangi clause. As Miss Sage mentioned in her contribution there is a hierarchy in terms of our environmental legislation. What this Supplementary Order Paper seeks to do is to make sure that the Treaty obligations on the Crown are paramount and that there is primacy to the Crown and iwi relationship up front in clause 14. At the moment as it is currently drafted the obligations towards tangata whenua are pushed down and are relegated to notifications by the Environmental Protection Authority on applications and the like. That does not go far enough and indeed it is not consistent with many other general clauses. We cannot water down the Treaty. We cannot water down the Treaty. We must make sure that the general obligations between the Crown and tangata whenua and iwi are restored and put up front into those clauses. So I commend the Hon Parekura Horomia’s Supplementary Order Paper 96. 
The second Supplementary Order Paper is in the name of the Hon Annette King and that proposed amendment is to give recognition to the Moriori people. The Hon Annette King and I share the Chatham Islands in our electorates and it goes without saying that the Moriori are the indigenous peoples of the Chatham Islands. Before there was Te Wai Pounamu the actual name of the South Island was Te Waka-a-Maui. For everyone who knows their Maori mythology Te Waka-a-Maui is the canoe of Maui who fished up the North Island. The Chatham Rise back in the day was a stretch of land that stretched all the way out to Rekohu so the Chatham Rise could well have been the mast on the waka of Maui. But the Chatham Rise is a highly significant feature on the ocean floor. It is probably the most abundant fishery in the world. It supports a lot of the economy not only on the mainland but also on the Chatham Islands. Also there is a huge interest in the Chatham Rise in regards to oil and gas exploration. 
The Moriori people and the community of the Chatham Islands as a whole gave a very compelling submission. Although I am not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I did read their submission. I did read carefully the submission from the Hokotehi Moriori Trust and its plea to have recognition in the bill of Moriori and their tikanga. I have been part of that. Twenty-five years ago I was privileged to be on the Chatham Islands at the unveiling of the memorial statue to Tommy Solomon who was the last full-blooded Moriori. Those events were the start of the as they say Lazarus-like resurrection of the amazing people of the Moriori. There has been recognition of Moriori right through for instance the Maori fisheries settlements. But in terms of this legislation there is no direct recognition. 
Therefore I do support the Hon Annette King’s Supplementary Order Paper 104 which provides that Moriori are given specific recognition through the definition of “Maori” and that it does include Moriori also. Likewise “tikanga Maori” will also refer to “tikane Moriori”. The Moriori do have their own unique reo their own unique language. I actually have not been taught in that so I will not attempt to articulate the Moriori language their reo. But I guess we want to support and make sure that we give recognition to that community because as I mentioned the Chatham Islands does make a huge contribution. Potentially there are significant development activities that will be taking place on the Chatham Rise following the passage of this legislation. 
I just want to recap the Hon Parekura Horomia’s comments on the Treaty of Waitangi. We want to make sure that the Treaty of Waitangi is given primacy which is a general obligation on the Crown. I support his Supplementary Order Paper 96. Likewise I support Supplementary Order Paper 104 from the Hon Annette King which does give recognition to the Moriori people and their special relationship their culture and their traditions with regard to the marine environment. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. That is very kind. I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. 
Hon Members 
: Steady. Don’t fall down. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: I will hang on to a podium here. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I’ll come and stand beside you. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: Thank you. This is the effort and the outcome of a very hard-working Minister and a Government that is getting on with legislation. We are not going to be taking 10 years to get on to this important issue— 
Hon Member 
: Unlike Labour. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: —unlike the Labour Party and the previous Government—which affects the exclusive economic zone around New Zealand the fourth or fifth-largest in the world. We were not going to wait until the end of the Olympics—as our friend from the Green Party suggested we should do—before we got on with any announcements. We are about getting on with the job and not avoiding the issue. These are difficult issues that we need to resolve and deal with in this country. At the end of the day New Zealand does face some continual dilemmas about how it balances and weighs up the importance of economic growth and the desire to retain and protect the natural environment we have inherited. That is what we continue to do every day and what this bill is all about. 
We can see from Supplementary Order Paper 102 where the Greens are coming from. We have got a suggestion here from Mr Hughes I believe it is that basically says that no person may undertake oil or gas exploration or production in depths of more than 200 metres. That is it. It is simple—just do not do it. Do not do it. The Greens’ attitude and their response to New Zealand going forward and growing is “Just don’t do it.” and “Stop it all.” and it is the same with fracking: “Don’t do it.” The Americans can be lifting their standard of living by getting access to shale gas getting on with things getting on with the world transforming their economy and making their economy much stronger but not in the Greens’ world. It is simple: “No. Just don’t do it.” I suppose you have got to respect that approach. At least Green members are consistent. They stick to their guns. Their attitude is always the same. 
From within this House we have heard plenty of criticism however of the slight contradiction that there is between the desire to provide jobs for people in New Zealand in communities around New Zealand to provide work and opportunities for people and this continual desire to say no to everything that comes along. That is the Greens’ position. Labour— 
Andrew Little 
: Have you got a new speech to give? Have you got something new to say? 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: Restatement and consistency are very important in this House. People want to see consistency. I see that the Labour Party continues on this issue here and has been raising a lot of red herrings—talking about the UN legislation. We are relying on the advice of the Legislation Advisory Committee and we are relying on the advice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade which have been very clear on this that this bill is not inconsistent with our international obligations. I would certainly prefer to take their advice on this topic than take advice from that legal expert from the East Coast Moana Mackey. I am not saying anything. I am not criticising her legal abilities by any stretch but I am more inclined to take the advice of the Legislation Advisory Committee which has been consistent all along that this bill here is consistent with our international obligations. 
The most surprising thing though—and I was greatly reassured to hear it—is that New Zealand First members who were breathing fire and brimstone against this bill for a long extended period have now seen the opportunity to reconsider and have come in behind this legislation following the Supplementary Order Papers that were elegantly expressed and brought to this Committee by the Minister Amy Adams. So on that basis I am very supportive of this bill and I think we should get on with it get this legislation in place in time deal with an issue that has been left to drift for so long and get a clear understanding of what is and is not able to be done in our exclusive economic zone. Thank you. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Following on from the last speaker Paul Goldsmith if there is one thing that the members on the other side of the Chamber just do not get it is that the world is changing—the world is changing. There is a race on. There is a race on for resources and they are mineral resources and they are fossil fuels. Whereas before there has been no proper and adequate regulation of the exclusive economic zone in this country and indeed in many other places around the world now there is a need to do that. It is those offshore areas that have become the target for the bounty hunters for the pursuers of that mineral wealth. This side of the Chamber says that there is nothing wrong with chasing and pursuing those mineral resources provided that there is recognition that this is not a long-term strategy. 
The world is changing and the availability of particularly fossil fuels is changing. What there are left are difficult to obtain or in difficult to get to places of the world. That is why deep-sea oil drilling has now become the key target of investors and oil companies around the world. It also means that even other mineral resources—and I am referring specifically to seabed ironsand mining—are getting harder to come by in many other places around the world. So the race is on. 
But the other big change is that the world has become much more sensitive to and aware of the impact on the environment of this type of intervention when it comes to harnessing and trying to get those resources. I know that in the area where I grew up and spent a lot of time in Taranaki it is not a simple equation of drill more get more. There are many members in the community up there—and it will not be just in Taranaki and it will not be just the surfers who go off East End in Fitzroy or down at Opunake— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Back Beach—Back Beach. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Mr Calder there are not many surfers down at Back Beach at the moment. There is a rahui in place. The member may not be aware that there is a rahui in place at the moment. 
But typically the surfing community and many others who are dependent on that part of the great Tasman Sea for their livelihoods are very concerned about the proposed developments in that part of the world. I might also say that the surfies off Lyall Bay are somewhat concerned too not because they want to stop the opportunity but because they know and are aware of the impact that it will have. And so it is very important that the legislation that we put in place is sensitive to and takes note of the environmental impact. 
So we come back to clause 10 of the bill which is the purpose clause. Modern interpretation and modern judicial activity now look very closely at the purpose of legislation like this and there is an expectation. The courts expect that Parliament will express itself clearly and consistently. If there are questions that are going to arise over the pursuit of development opportunities in our economic zone then the courts will be looking at not only the regulatory legislation but our international obligations as well. That is why the purpose section of the legislation is so important. Where we clearly have international obligations that we are expected to meet as a compassionate global citizen then we need to get it right. 
The problem with the wording of clause 10 even in the Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 is that it simply does not properly reflect the international obligations that we have. It is not enough to say that we just have this balance where one day we will go for unfettered unrestrained development and on other days we will pay due respect to the environment. It is about the international obligation that we have signed up to which is to preserve and protect—preserve and protect—the marine environment. That is our obligation. 
Although the international obligation does not stop economic development—oil drilling seabed ironsand mining—it does mean that our principal starting point our primary obligation is to preserve and protect the marine environment. That puts an onus and an obligation on the regulators when they are considering applications for development to ensure that the safeguards—proper safeguards meaningful and effective safeguards—are in place so that the marine environment the seabed and the sea that flows through it are not affected adversely or improperly and so that we still have an ocean environment for future generations to partake of to enjoy and in which to harness the natural products of the sea and of the marine environment. So the point I am making is— 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to come to the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia Supplementary Order Paper 96 and congratulate him on the work he did which relates to the clause around the Treaty of Waitangi. What was very disappointing at the Local Government and Environment Committee was that there had been absolutely zero consultation with iwi on this legislation in the development of the bill. It really surprised the members on the Opposition side of the select committee that on a piece of legislation— 
Simon O’Connor 
: Have you consulted iwi about this speech? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Yes Parekura Horomia has consulted iwi in the drafting of this. I mean look at that: “Have you consulted iwi in the giving of this speech?”. What a ridiculous statement. This is a piece of legislation that iwi are actually enormously concerned about. It might be a joke to Simon O’Connor but the fact is that the Government should have consulted with iwi in the development of this piece of legislation. I mean he only has to look up the East Coast at NgatiPorou to Te Whanau-a-Apanui who are deeply concerned about the implications of this legislation for their iwi for their livelihoods— 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Yeah well they should be concerned about getting some jobs as well. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Because they will get jobs? Petrobras has said there are no jobs on the East Coast actually Mr Goldsmith OK? So you can keep trotting out that same old line. I welcome any National MP to front up on the East Coast because no National MP has including our local MP on this issue. I welcome all these National MPs who suddenly have so much to say about iwi—so much to say about how great it is going to be for iwi on the East Coast—to come at any point because we have been waiting for a National Minister or MP to come up and have that debate and to provide the information and perhaps allay some of the concerns that iwi have around it. But when you look at the attitude in this bill of not consulting with iwi—like when it came to the permit that was given to Petrobras on the East Coast again and iwi heard about it on the 6 o’clock news as did the rest of us—there is kind of a pattern there that is disturbing. 
Dr Apirana Mahuika from NgatiPorou came to the select committee. I have known Api for a long time and I do not think I have ever seen him as angry as he was when he gave that submission to the select committee. In fact the iwi submissions were the only submissions that actually said that this bill should stop completely and start again. See most other submitters were actually very constructive even though the Government ignored everything they had to say. They came along and said: “Yes we need legislation we want it to go ahead but this is how we think it should be changed.” Those were very constructive submissions and we welcome that. Iwi were so angry about this and about the Treaty of Waitangi clause and about the lack of consultation that they actually said: “You need to stop and do it again.” 
We had a very compelling submission from Mark Solomon from NgaiTahu who pointed out that when you look at the area of the exclusive economic zone that NgaiTahu have an interest in it is astonishing that they were not told about the bill or consulted on it in any way. I would again urge the Government to think seriously about the way it consults with iwi on these pieces of legislation. When we had the submission from Te Iwi Moriori Trust Board it came along and pointed out that it is only because of the Chatham Islands that New Zealand has such a large exclusive economic zone. It is only because the Chathams are so far away from the mainland and they drag our exclusive economic zone out as far as that so it would like to have been consulted. 
I welcome the Supplementary Order Paper and I really do in all sincerity urge the Minister in the chair to consider Supplementary Order Paper 104 by the Hon Annette King which would give recognition of Moriori people in the legislation as we have done for Maori. We have done this in the fisheries legislation as well so this is not something that is setting a new precedent that the Government would need to be worried about. It is done in fisheries legislation and it is entirely appropriate that it be done in this legislation as well. 
I know that there were members on the Government side of the select committee who were actually quite swayed by that submission but in the end we were not able to get it across the line. I do think that perhaps Minister this is one Supplementary Order Paper that we could consider going through. I know that it would mean an awful lot to the Moriori people and as I am sure the Minister is well aware they have some local debates going on about phosphate mining on the Chatham Rise which means that this piece of legislation is particularly something that they are reminded of daily when they are looking at what is happening in that particular area. 
I want to come on to clause 21 of Subpart 4 which is about the Environmental Protection Authority. The member Nikki Kaye made some comments about this along the way that I wanted to pick up on. In terms of our concerns about the Environmental Protection Authority and we raised this at the select committee we asked whether if a legal challenge is taken against the Government questioning its authority under this piece of legislation to allow this activity to go ahead—putting aside all the issues we have with the purpose clause putting aside all the issues we have with the clause around international obligations—the agency that actually awards the marine consent could be a factor that an international tribunal would take into consideration. Is that something that an international tribunal might look at when it is deciding whether or not that marine consent has been legally I suppose in terms of our international obligations granted? We had a bit of a discussion around it and where we got to was that the answer was actually yes. For example if we were allowing Shell to issue marine consents on oil and gas exploration that would probably be something that an international tribunal would say would put us in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That is an extreme example obviously. But it does mean that we need to be very careful when we look at the Environmental Protection Authority as to how that might be viewed by an international tribunal. 
The problem with the Environmental Protection Authority is that it does not have as its purpose the protection of the environment. We know that because when that piece of legislation establishing the Environmental Protection Authority was going through Parliament Labour put up an amendment saying: “Here’s a really wacky idea: let’s make environmental protection one of the purposes of the Environmental Protection Authority.” and the Government voted it down. 
Andrew Little 
: No! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Government voted it down. So you do not have to look very far and an international tribunal would not have to look very far to see that environmental protection which is required under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is actually not part of the purpose. It was not just accidentally left out and not just unmentioned but by a vote in Parliament the Government showed that environmental protection was not one of the purposes of the Environmental Protection Authority. 
So Minister when we talk about the purpose clause and the importance of ensuring consistency with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea we need to make sure we get ourselves well over that line so that we can be absolutely certain. This is even more important when you consider the Environmental Protection Authority—and the Environmental Protection Authority officials were very good on the bill as were all the officials; I want to thank the officials as I meant to do in my first speech who helped us on this legislation because we certainly ran them through their paces. But the international tribunal will look at the Environmental Protection Authority and say: “Well not only have you got this purpose clause that we don’t think quite meets your obligations but the agency that is dishing out the marine consents is actually an economic development agency.” That is what it is if we are being brutally honest. It is not an environmental protection authority. 
When we come to the functions and the clauses in Part 1 around the Environmental Protection Authority I do think that it is a reminder of why we need to go back to the purpose clause and ensure that it gets us across the line for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea because we have left ourselves wide open in terms of the Environmental Protection Authority being the organisation that administers it having more legal challenges. 
I want to just finish off by going back to some comments that Jacqui Dean made about Labour’s desire to see more replication of the language and legal tests of the Resource Management Act throughout the legislation. I am very pleased that she read that out because that is absolutely what we believe. But when it comes to the purpose clause that has to be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That is the bottom line for the Labour Party and putting the language of the Resource Management Act in there as we have said is nice—I mean that is great—but the Resource Management Act does not have to be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea so it does not get us over that line that we have to get over—the line that actually we are legally obliged to get over. This is not a kind of “nice-to-have” or a case of “We might want to do it.” 
We have ratified this convention. The only reason we are even allowed to go and exploit resources in our exclusive economic zone is because we ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. So adhering to it is not a case of: “Well you can if you want to it would be nice if you want to.” It is actually: “You must.” That is why it is important to use the language because as my colleague Charles Chauvel said a court is always going to look back to the treaty that gives us the right which is the entire reason that we are actually putting this legislation into place in the first instance. The only reason we are doing this is that we have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea so to suggest that under the “International obligations” clause you do not need to look any further than this legislation that this legislation is all you need and that you can ignore the international conventions that we have ratified is simply not true and the Minister knows that. The court is always going to go back to the treaties which are actually where this legislation came from and are actually the reason why we are doing it. That treaty says quite clearly that we have a right to exploit those resources but it comes with a duty and an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. 
Why can we not just have that language in the legislation so that it can be clear that what we want to do is be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? That is all we want to do. Having the clause in there that we have now is better than the one we had before. The idea of balance was ridiculous and was never going to work and good on the Minister for getting rid of that. We are very pleased to see that that has been abolished but— 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. As we have been debating this afternoon the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is all about activities in the exclusive economic zone. What I want to quickly touch on though is the agenda the rationale behind the bill. This Government has got a clear “drill it mine it frack it” agenda for this country—this 19th century approach where we are looking to the past for inspiration not to the future economy. What we know from the Government’s amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 100 which has been tabled is that they have had this green spin put on them by the Government. It has improved the purpose clause partially with the inclusion of “sustainable management”. It has upped the penalties. But what did not get covered in the media was all the meat that is in the amendments and that is what I want to talk about today. 
Although the media around the Minister for the Environment’s changes called them a back-down to the Greens and the green agenda in the  
National Business Review 
 what it should have said is that actually what we are seeing is also a back-down to the oil industry. What we see in the amendments to clause 17 and in new clause 17A—the “Anadarko clauses” as I call them—is this Government backing down to oil industry pressure. These are sops in terms of both an SOP and a sop to the oil industry. What we are seeing is the amendment to clause 17 simply giving oil projects that have been rejected more time and in new clause 17A we are making the outrageous suggestion that all you have to do to avoid having to get a consent for the period of passing this bill is simply to plan an activity. 
I will go into that in a little bit more detail. Clause 17 to begin with is around how planned petroleum activities may— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member might not be aware but the clauses he is discussing are not in Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think they are in Part 1A. The member will come back to Part 1. Thank you. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Sure. I would like to talk about those amendments later when we look at Part 1A. But what I would like to point out is my amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 102 that would amend clause 15 in Part 1. What my amendment does quite simply is make deep-sea oil drilling a prohibited activity. This is defined as anything greater than 200 metres. 
The Government always says the Greens are against everything. That is its meme its talking point that it goes on about at the moment. But the fact is that we are against dumb ideas. We are against ideas that are not in our economic interests. We are against ideas that risk our environment for foreign oil-drillers’ profit. It just so happens that many of those same bad ideas come out of this Government’s office. 
My amendment to clause 15 would make deep-sea drilling a prohibited activity. We have got to do it because it is a different kettle of fish from what we have done in Taranaki over the last 100 years where we are talking about drilling only 130 metres deep. Now we are talking about under this bill this Government allowing oil drilling in New Zealand as deep as 3000 metres. One of the permits under consideration by Minister Heatley is for drilling between 1000 and 3000 metres. This is at the frontier of science the frontier of technology and there is no amount of rules regulation or legislation that this Government can introduce that is going to plug a well. We saw from the Deepwater Horizon incident that a spill from an exploratory well cost $40 billion. What this Government is quite happy to allow are planned activities. All that drillers need to have is a permit to go ahead and drill exploratory wells in an environment— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Clause 15 is also not in Part 1. It too is in Part 1A. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There are several questions. I am going to put the questions now. The first question is on the amendment in Eugenie Sage’s name— 
Eugenie Sage 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was seeking a call on two Supplementary Order Papers in my name which I have not had an opportunity to speak on yet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member has had two calls. I have started to put the questions. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 90 and 101 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 12; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to clarify with you what happened there and why we are now voting on these clauses given that Mr Hughes was actually still speaking. Did you terminate his speech? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I did not. He sat down I looked around and no one took a call. I commenced putting the questions. I was actually into the questions so I just proceeded to continue putting them—simple as that. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 12; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 10 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 10 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of Eugenie Sage to insert new clause 11A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 14 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 47 Noes 71. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 101 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 14 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 47 Noes 71. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the name of the Hon Annette King to insert new clause 14A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; Mana 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; Mana 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 1A Duties and restrictions 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call around Part 1A. I want to focus this contribution on two elements of the Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100. These are the amendments to clause 17 and the new clause 17A. These are two clauses that are representative of the concerns that were raised by members of the Opposition during the debate on Part 1 around matters being included in the Supplementary Order Paper that we believe need more attention certainly need more explanation and could have benefited from a referral back to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
In particular in that regard I want to note the amendment to clause 17 which does not even rate a mention in the Minister’s explanatory note of her Supplementary Order Paper. Clause 17 does not get a mention there. I am just checking right to the end of the explanatory note and no—no mention whatsoever of the justification for the amendment to clause 17. It manages to get new clause 17A in there briefly but there is absolutely nothing in the explanatory note to tell the Parliament why there should be the replacement of clause 17(3) that has been suggested in the Supplementary Order Paper. That is why the Opposition parties want this Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill referred back to the Local Government and Environment Committee because in the amended clause 17(3) we have a change that appears to create a very large loophole. There is no explanation from the Minister in her explanatory note. She has just dumped it on the Table and said: “Accept this.” 
Well if we have a look at the proposed new clause 17(3) that is here we see in it among other things: “If the person undertaking the activity applies for a marine consent within the period described in subsection (2) the activity may continue after the period has expired until the application—… (b) is returned as incomplete under section 42 and any objections and appeals are determined.” So what that clause could be doing is saying that if someone has an application and it is returned by the Environmental Protection Authority as being incomplete that process can carry on. That process can actually carry on ad infinitum because when you look at the referenced clause 42 it actually says that every time it is returned—if it is incomplete and then it is returned—it is considered to be a new application. So we could be launching into a continuous process here for an application that is returned as incomplete. 
But we have got no explanation from the Minister as to why we should be agreeing today to allow for a situation that would see an incomplete application simply carry on—no explanation whatsoever from the Minister for that. There may well be a good explanation. This may well not be the giant loophole that it looks like but from this side of the Chamber it is very hard to tell. An incomplete application is an incomplete application. It has not met the rules. It should not be being processed except that under this provision it gets an exception and then it gets to come back again as a new application. So the Minister may want to take a call and explain to the Committee having completely failed to put any explanation in the explanatory note on this matter why that clause has arrived. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Maybe she has an old legal opinion about it. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: A legal opinion! That would be right. We had a bit of a struggle with that along the way. I hope the Minister does take a call because this is the problem with dropping a large Supplementary Order Paper like this on the Table without the opportunity for proper select committee analysis of it. 
Then we come to the new clause 17A which at least does get a mention in the explanatory note. This is a clause that allows for planned petroleum activities to commence and continue. Let us be absolutely clear about what this new clause is doing. It is talking about planned activities—not just existing activities but planned activities. So what this does is it says they both “may commence and continue”. What stage are some of the activities around New Zealand up to at the moment—whether they are existing or planned? This clause is effectively saying that if it is planned it can carry on. It is the green light for some projects that have potentially been causing concern around New Zealand. 
So we have got two clauses here in Part 1A that I believe have come to this Committee without adequate explanation and that appear to me to look like clauses that are loopholes. We have to I believe have a more adequate explanation. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 One of the most eloquent submissions that we had at the Local Government and Environment Committee was actually the last submission. That was from a masters ecology student Lan Pham from Otago University and she said: “[You can] acknowledge that the economic benefits which may stem from utilisation of resources contained in the EEZ and [extended continental shelf] may be enormous but the ecological consequences associated with some activities would dwarf those economic benefits.” 
The costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico—and that of course was an exploratory well not a production well—were well over US$15 billion. That reflects the huge environmental and economic risks associated with deep-sea oil drilling. That is why my colleague Gareth Hughes’ Supplementary Order Paper 102 which would prohibit deep-sea oil and gas exploration or production in depths of more than 200 metres is essential. We have seen with the grounding of the  
Rena 
 just how difficult it is to manage an oil spill. That of course happened close to New Zealand’s largest port it occurred in good weather and it was within the one-in-100-year spill event for which New Zealand has a capacity to respond. 
The Government will claim that the bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is not about oil spills and that is because it is in a state of denial that oil spills are a potential consequence of deep-sea oil exploration and oil drilling. When the Ministry of Economic Development did a comparative review of the management of offshore petroleum operations after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico it had a number of important conclusions. That review highlighted that these accidents of course were unpredictable and that we had very limited resources and expertise available in New Zealand to regulate or seek to control these sorts of disasters. 
So when you combine this with the findings of last year’s formal review of our oil pollution response capability which concluded that we have got unpredictable sea conditions around New Zealand and that this and our low sea temperatures mean that controlling an offshore oil spill would be “extremely difficult” and that we have got in New Zealand the potential for a similar breakdown in oversight as occurred in the United States because you have got several different agencies having varying responsibilities that is why this Supplementary Order Paper in Gareth Hughes’ name needs to pass. 
The Government is spending several billion dollars on responding to the Christchurch earthquakes. That is a major cost on our economy. Why would we contemplate having a similar economic cost from a disastrous oil spill from deep-sea oil drilling and exploration? That is why the Supplementary Order Paper should pass. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have a small announcement to make. The votes on Supplementary Order Papers 96 and 101 were incorrectly announced. The result should have been 48 in favour and 71 against in each case. There is no change to the outcome of the vote and the record will show the correct result. My apologies to the Committee. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to talk about the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 and I want to start with new clause 17A which is for planned activities not just existing activities and I should say that these are transitional arrangements. This is recognising that there is already some activity taking place in the exclusive economic zone. Obviously there needs to be some way of bringing them into this legislation without being too disruptive to those who are already carrying out activities. 
When we were discussing the transitional provisions at the Local Government and Environment Committee there were some concerns that we had around those existing activity provisions. We just wanted to make sure that there were not going to be any gaps that might result in some kind of accident because it fell through a gap that we put in when we put these transitional provisions in place. We were reassured I think by and large—I mean there were some arguments around some of the time frames and whether it was too short or too long and industry had one point of view and the environmental organisations had another point of view. But ultimately I think we got to the point where we thought: “OK well the provisions for existing activities—probably there are not too many gaps in those.” 
The reason that we were convinced of that is that it kept being raised time and time again that this was not about stuff that was just planned—this was about stuff that was already happening. So if we were to just shut that down it would mean actually stopping something that was already happening as opposed to something where someone had said: “Well we’re intending to do this but we haven’t started yet.” That was the point that reassured us. So to suddenly see that in this Supplementary Order Paper we are now extending out transitional provisions for planned activities which we were reassured at the select committee would not happen is really concerning—very very concerning. 
I would like the Minister to take a call on this in all sincerity. I just want to read this out. The definition of “planned petroleum activity” it says here “means an activity involved with the exploration prospecting or mining for petroleum if before the new regulations come into force—(a) the exploration prospecting or mining for petroleum with which the activity is involved is authorised by a permit”—basically under the Crown Minerals Act—“and (b) the activity has not commenced.” 
What I would like to know from the Minister is what this means for the permit that has been issued on the East Coast of the North Island to Petrobras. At the moment it has carried out seismic surveying so that would be considered an existing activity and there are clauses to deal with that and that is all fine and good. It has not yet done any drilling. I want to know whether this transitional provision means that because it has been given a permit by the Crown under the Crown Minerals Act and because that activity has not yet continued is it going to be able to go out and drill in the Raukumara Basin which is 3000 to 4000 metres deep without having to get a marine consent and without having to go through a full process that involves public consultation and the ability for the community that I live in on the East Coast to have a say? 
Maybe I have got that wrong but my reading of the bill is that that could be how this is interpreted. I would really like the Minister to reassure me that this is not saying that just because something was planned and someone has been given a permit they are now basically exempt and will not have to go through the processes that we are setting out in this piece of legislation—they will not have to go through those processes because it was a planned activity. 
That is very different from an existing activity where someone is already doing something and it would be unreasonable to say: “You now have to stop and go through all these processes.” because they have made investments and that is absolutely fine and good. But where they have not started that activity and where the structures are not currently in place they should have to go through the full processes in this piece of legislation. 
I would like some clarity from the Minister around that because obviously that will be very concerning as we have the Government going out and issuing more and more permits under the Crown Minerals Act. Before this legislation has gone through Parliament before the regulations have been finalised it is out there issuing permits. That now suddenly carries much greater legal weight than this clause in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper because under the bill as it came back from select committee that did not mean that just because they had the permit they were going to be able to avoid the processes in this bill. They would still have to go through them because they were not already doing that activity. This now says—or suggests to me—that they do not have to go through those processes that they could just go out there and drill in the Raukumara Basin without going through a process that ensures that environmental protection is considered before they start carrying out those activities. I would like the Minister to respond to that. 
And then clause 17 and replacing clause 17(3) and introducing a major loophole is also an issue. Maybe even if there was a time frame that was inserted within that clause— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: There is. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Minister says there is— 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call and clarify that matter and I have just double-checked it between Mr Robertson’s first contribution on it. The way that the wording of clause 17 works is that if in fact the application is returned as incomplete then they have an ability to submit a new application but within the original 6 months which was provided in clause 17(2) in the original bill. So it is not circular—it cannot go on and on. They can submit a new application but the provisions in clause 17(3) and (4) as set out in the Supplementary Order Paper make it clear that that can happen only in the original time frame set out in clause 17(2) which is the original 6 months. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for the Environment for that clarification. Unfortunately section 17(2) actually says: “The activity may continue without a marine consent for a prescribed period or if no period is prescribed for the activity for 6 months from the date …”. One of the other issues that I wanted to raise was the extensive use of regulation in this area. Right through the bill we talk about prescribed periods. We were assured at the Local Government and Environment Committee that that prescribed period would pretty much be fewer than 6 months but we do not have any certainty around that. The prescribed period could be longer than 6 months in which case that would become a concern. 
On the issue that the Minister has just clarified and I thank her for doing that—and I am going to have to go back and have another read through it in light of what the Minister has said—I do think it might be good because I know that clause 40 I think which is around the incomplete applications— 
Hon Member 
: 42. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —42—does not have a time period in it. I wonder whether for clarification it might be useful because although I take on board what the Minister has said I am not necessarily convinced. As I said I will have to go back and have a read of it but maybe having a time frame in there just to clarify that there is not a loophole will be in everyone’s best interest. We will certainly go away and have a look at the amendments but the amendments might be better if they are drafted by the Minister and her very very able— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: PCO. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —Parliamentary Counsel Office. That would be useful. But I do think that would just clarify it because when I read through it—and we did a lot of work on clause 17 at the select committee—it did not jump out to me that it was that absolutely clear that once it was sent back as an incomplete application that time period still applied. Maybe clause 42 is where that clarification can be put in to say that this does not now suddenly just become never ending. I thank the Minister for that. 
Coming back to the issue of clause 17 I think it is a very real issue about what that means. I am sorry the Minister did not clarify new clause 17A about planned activities and what that might mean where permits are now currently issued because I know that there is deep concern amongst a lot of communities around the country that suddenly this is providing an awful lot more legal protection around the permits that are given out under the Crown Minerals Act or legal weighting and the ability to go on perhaps without having to go through the processes that we are setting up here. I would be as I said very very concerned if on the East Coast of the North Island where the activity has not started where structures are not in place the companies that have been issued the Crown Minerals Act permits were suddenly able to just go ahead and carry out drilling when in fact none of that has been done and we understood that they would have to go through this process. I look forward either tonight or the next time we discuss this to the Minister actually being able to address that. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 It is good to hear that contribution from the Minister for the Environment that it is not circular and I agree with the recommendation by the member Moana Mackey that maybe it could be clarified a bit because what we do not want to see is a whole bunch of legal challenges—a feeding frenzy for lawyers—as we try and work out what these laws actually mean. But it would be good to get more clarity from the Minister around new clause 17A. What does it actually mean— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill without amendment and progress on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. 
Report adopted. 
Personal Explanations 
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister—Actions Incorrectly Attributed to Hon Lianne Dalziel 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I seek leave under Standing Order 354 to make a personal explanation about an impression that might have been garnered from an answer I gave to a question 5 months ago. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: On 22 March in answer to oral question No. 5 from the Hon Lianne Dalziel I gave an answer that relied heavily on statements previously made by the member concerning her personal circumstances. Although you have found no matter of privilege in the answer I none the less apologise for any unintended reputational damage to the member. The last 23 months have been difficult for all members of Parliament from Canterbury including me and I acknowledge that throughout that time all have sought first to represent the best interests of their constituents. 
The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.