Hughes Gareth: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 30 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2742. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Talofa lava. I rise to take a call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. The Green Party has long recognised the need for an environmental management regime for the oceans and we support the intent of an EEZ bill but we cannot support this weak flawed and overly permissive bill.  
Chris Hipkins 
: I thought they voted in favour of it. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: It is vitally important we get this right. The regime we establish is likely to remain in effect for years and like with the Resource Management Act we need a durable solution to provide certainty for business for iwi for communities and for Kiwis.  
New Zealand has got the fifth-largest EEZ zone in the world. It is internationally significant and it is an environment we know so little about. We New Zealanders love our oceans. They are where we fish where we play and where we get our spiritual sustenance from and we take pleasure from the animals and the environment. It is an environment though where drillers hope to drill deep deep deep for oil; where Chatham Rock Phosphate wants to literally suck up kilometres of the sea floor to find phosphate. It is where other companies want to start mining the hydrothermal vents and methane hydrates.  
As I think the member Chris Hipkins was interjecting there it is true that the Green Party supported the bill in its first reading because we support the intent of EEZ legislation. We have been calling for it for 12 years. It is good to finally have it. We tried to make the bill better in the select committee. We supported the numerous submitters who supported like us the intent of the bill but not the bill as it was drafted and not the bill that we have seen come back from the select committee. Ultimately our economy depends on our environment and this bill is all about—it is all about—facilitating activities like risky deep-sea drilling to occur. This bill is called the “EEZ Bill” but really it should be called the “Eee-zee Drilling Bill” because that is what this bill is facilitating.  
There are numerous reasons why the Green Party is opposed to the bill. There is the fact that it fails our international obligations; it prioritises economic development over those environmental considerations; it fails to take into account climate change full stop; it contributes to uncertainty around the drafting along with the precautionary approach; it fails to meet our Treaty of Waitangi obligations; it fails the principles of natural justice; it contains woefully inadequate penalties meaning that the taxpayer is going to have to pick up the tab when there is an accident; and it simply ignores marine protection.  
Before I go on to the bill I would like to thank the submitters and the officials who worked on the bill and I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Nicky Wagner. But I have got to lament the select committee process. Here we saw the six National members almost uniformly vote against any amendment put forward by an environmentalist a legal expert or the Green Party yet when you look on the other side at all the amendments supported by industry it was tick tick tick. It was an absolutely biased process. And they call it a balance which is the most shocking irony of the whole process.  
As we saw there was a split vote on the select committee among the six National members the three Labour members the two Green members and the one New Zealand First member. We saw the bill reported back from the committee and not supported by the committee. All the amendments the Government wanted to put forward simply could not go through because of that split vote. So I acknowledge everyone who engaged but I would like to point out that it was a deeply flawed process. We have not seen a better bill come out of the select committee as a result.  
The first critique of the bill is the bill’s weighting in favour of economic development over environmental responsibility to protect and preserve. The bill makes deep-sea drilling almost certain to be approved—I have not heard any member from National say anything to the contrary—and this brings with it the spectre of a catastrophic oil spill. It is not academic any more for New Zealanders because as we have seen after the  
Rena 
 oil on beaches is something Kiwis have tasted they have smelt it they have seen it and they have touched it.  
The Government in a very surprising move is currently consulting on the regulations for this bill which is at only its second reading now. The Government is consulting on a bill that has not even reached the Committee stage. What the Government is proposing to do is make risky deep-sea drilling a discretionary activity.  
But I have to point out that no rules no amount of consultation and no amount of Government legislation are ever going to plug a deep-sea well blowout and the corresponding catastrophic oil spill. The only way we can protect our waters our tourism our aquaculture industries and our beaches is to make risky deep-sea drilling a prohibited activity. As the petroleum lobby group in New Zealand says the only thing we can do when facing an oil spill is focus on beach clean-ups. This legislation is not going to stop a spill; in fact it is going to make it more likely as it simply makes deep-sea drilling “eee-zee”.  
The Minister I think pointed to our international obligations incorrectly. Numerous submitters—I would say the majority—including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said the bill is not consistent with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The only reason we get to use our EEZ and continental shelf is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. With that right comes the responsibility to “protect and preserve”—those three key words—our marine environment. The drafting changes made at the select committee in fact make the bill weaker. We need to be explicit. If the Government wants to be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea then let us say it. Let us say: “This bill is consistent with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” If that is the fact the Government should not be scared of putting it into the legislation.  
The key clause in the bill is clause 10 which sets out the purpose of the bill. The bill tries to enshrine this National ideological fixation with balance which is the whole idea that you can balance a bit of environmental degradation against a little bit of economic development. For us it is a false dichotomy. A healthy economy relies on a healthy environment. It is that simple. The bill fails to acknowledge entirely there are any environmental limits or that there are any environmental bottom lines. As Simon Terry points out the bill is a bit like a jellyfish. It is a bill that has got no spine. There is no bottom line.  
A key couple of phrases in the drafting of the bill is that decision makers are required only to “take into account” matters such as the protection of biological diversity and the integrity of marine species ecosystems and processes. They are not required as they under the Resource Management Act to “recognise and provide”. These are key drafting terms because to “recognise and provide” is a lot stronger than to simply “take into account” as the National Government would have the Environmental Protection Authority board do when it is considering its applications. The bill essentially leaves all the key decisions up to the board. This is the board nominated by the National Government and I have no confidence in a National Government - stacked board to make the right decision when it comes to our precious marine environment.  
In an astounding move we are seeing that perhaps the most dangerous part of the bill is the complete failure to take climate change into account. In fact the bill specifically prevents the Environmental Protection Authority board from considering the effects of discharging greenhouse gases. Here we have got the most pressing environmental issue in the world facing us but this Government wants to drill more than 3 kilometres deep dig up literally thousands of tonnes of oil and the Government does not want to take into account greenhouse gases. It is the most short-sighted and dangerous part of this bill. It shows that this Government has got its head in the sand over climate change.  
As we saw in the estimates in the Finance and Expenditure Committee which this Government should be absolutely embarrassed about the emissions trading scheme costs under the estimates today $1.5 billion—$1.5 billion is the annual cost of the emissions trading scheme recently revealed by this Government. It is a shame. It is a tragedy. This bill as it is drafted treats it as if the planet just did not matter.  
I am going to quickly race through for my last 2 minutes. We see the precautionary approach replaced with this novel term just plucked out of nowhere: the “favour caution” language used in the bill. It will simply lead to increased uncertainty. It will be a feeding frenzy for lawyers as we ditch the internationally understood and case-law developed precautionary principle.  
We saw some changes to the Treaty of Waitangi clause. We did not go far enough to commit to the Treaty.  
The bill ignores natural justice. There is no ability to—