Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): I would like to make some comments around policy statements. We are dealing with clause 188 on page 149 of the bill. The bill introduces this concept of having policy statements in the EEZ. We have got to remember that there is no plan mechanism in the EEZ so we have got the Minister being able to have virtually total control of the policy statement process.There was quite a degree of concern from submitters because this part of the bill was largely drafted in response to industry concerns. The consultation that was done before this part of the bill was introduced and became part of the bigger bill was largely with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and industry users. It shut out environmental groups and those representing the thousands of New Zealanders who have made submissions about activities like the Trans-Tasman Resources and Chatham Rock Phosphate seabed mining proposals. So there does seem to be quite a level of public scepticism amongst some submitters about what these policy statements under the EEZ are going to be doing.It is interesting because as a result of the decisions of the EPA to decline consent to Trans-Tasman Resources a huge application for seabed mining off the Taranaki coast which would have had a sediment plume of about 50 kilometres the decision panel concluded that there was uncertainty around the scope and significance of the effects of seabed mining as proposed by Trans-Tasman Resources. There was huge public interest in that application 4700 submissions and the same with Chatham Rock Phosphate which was a major proposal which would have seen the destruction of benthic habitats. The fishing industry was involved in making submissions and many members of the public. Again the decision-making panel there said that there was a lot of uncertainty. That goes back to the provisions—I think it is in section 61—of the principal exclusive economic zone legislation about the precautionary principle. Once those decisions had come out and the EPA had said no to major seabed mining because of uncertainty about the scale of effects then the industry came along and started lobbying the Government and lo and behold we end up with the provisions in this bill that allow the development of policy statements. Submitters were concerned in terms of the new section 37A in clause 188 about the purpose of these policy statements being to state objectives and policies to support decision-making on applications for marine consents" like seabed mining.Originally in the bill as introduced that was not constrained by having to have the policy statements implement or be consistent with the purpose of the principal Act the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act (EEZ Act). The Local Government and Environment Committee has put in that qualification but there are still major concerns around the process that these policy statements will go through and the major discretion that is available to the Minister. So when you have this part of the bill being the result of industry lobbying because they did not like the way the EEZ Act and the precautionary principle were applied to two seabed mining applications and you have in new section 37B(b) where in terms of the consultation process unlike a lot of other things in this bill there is a huge level of detail and prescription setting out what must happen when—here we have a clause that just allows the Minister to establish a consultation process that gives the public iwi authorities regional councils and people with existing interests adequate time and opportunity to comment. Unlike the national policy statement (NPS) process in the Resource Management Act (RMA)—and this is all supposed to be integrated legislation remember—where there are quite robust and detailed provisions around how a national policy statement should be developed here these EEZ policy statements are much looser.The Minister has a lot of discretion around what sort of consultation will occur. There is no requirement for an evaluation report in terms of something similar to a section 32 analysis that you get under the RMA and there is the emphasis on consulting people with existing interests giving them a special status that they do not have in terms of the NPS process under the RMA. I have to ask the Minister why there is so little detail around the consultation process here and why this provision has gone into the bill and will go into the Act as a result of industry being concerned about the precautionary principle and the way it was applied in the decisions on Chatham Rock Phosphate and Trans-Tasman Resources. This level of discretion makes us very suspicious about the potential for a Minister to override the primary legislation by going through an EEZ policy statement process and putting in place policies that will undermine the precautionary principle. If that happens of course it will be much easier for Trans-Tasman Resources and others who want to go ahead with this trialling and experimentation with massively destructive seabed mining—never been tried in deep waters like they are proposing here. New Zealand is the experiment for it. Why does the Minister have such discretion when these policy statements can potentially override the provisions in the principal Act? Why has there been no public consultation on the development of this section before it became part of the bill when there was consultation with user groups and industry stakeholders? We are quite suspicious of the purpose of these policy statements given that it has obviously been something that the industry has wanted.I think the other issue I would like to comment on in this call is climate change because there is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 283 in my name that would require some consideration when the EPA is considering marine consent activities of the greenhouse gas emissions that may be associated with those activities. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer said in a major address on the RMA and our planning legislation last year "Planning for climate change in future is an enormous issue and central government so far in New Zealand has not taken that on board." That is what my SOP which would change the RMA attempted to do in ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions were taken into account here under the RMA and there is a parallel SOP here to require decision makers to look at how the activities that are being applied for in the EEZ are actually going to contribute or not to our climate pollution.The Green Party puts an emphasis on protecting the climate because we require a stable climate. This Government in voting down the changes to the RMA that would have seen it go back to the provisions prior to 2004 which would have allowed decision makers to take that into account I imagine will vote down this similar SOP here but we have a responsibility to look at how we are impacting on the climate. The Government cannot just keep dismissing actions that would be directed towards mitigation and just focus on adaptation. Of course it is in the EEZ where we have got these major activities for deep-sea oil drilling to try to find more oil reserves when there is already abundant evidence that known reserves are going to significantly impact on the climate if we allow them to be exploited. So there is an opportunity with this SOP to actually take climate protection into account to put it into the principal Act. There are a number of other major amendments to the EEZ in this part of the bill. We should be doing something about the climate. Thank you."