Sage Eugenie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sage Eugenie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4521. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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.