Goldsmith Paul: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3690. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak at this the second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill which sets up an environment management regime for New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. I would like to state at the outset that this Government believes that our natural environment is our greatest asset and that successful economic and environmental policies can and must go hand in hand. New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf are among the largest in the world and they offer significant economic opportunities and unknown bounty and could sustain and improve our living standards. But they are also an important part of our environment and need protecting. This bill fills a regulatory gap that currently exists in managing the environmental effects of offshore activities like petroleum exploration and mining in this area of the sea. So we go from open slather to a new regime.  
I think it is a very politically interesting bill because it neatly divides the House. On the one side we have got the Greens—one of what I refer to as the extremist parties and I suppose Mana might be in the same camp—who basically do not want anything to happen at all. The idea of balancing economic gain and environmental preservation is anathema to them. By their logic if there is any risk you do not do it. Lord knows how they pluck up the courage to get into a car every day because you have to take risks in life. Any negative effect on the environment is reason not to do something new and for that reason they oppose new dairy farms they oppose salmon farms and basically they are keen to wind down the dairy industry because of the effect it has on the environment. Well that might be nice as a slogan but I do not think we all really want to lower our living standards to the degree that would be effected by their policies if they got an opportunity to bring them in. Amazingly the Greens still talk about New Zealand’s living standards and housing affordability and they worry about New Zealanders leaving to go to Australia but when it really comes down to it their instinct is to put roadblocks in the way of progress. You cannot have it both ways.  
Then we have the Labour Party which basically on this bill is a light version of the Greens. Labour members are torn. They know that most New Zealanders realise that we have to make a living in this country and they like it. They know that we cannot opt out of the competitive world and that our kids generally want to live in dynamic and exciting countries with strong economies and good job prospects. They know these things and yet they do not want to be outdone by the Greens. So their position is basically the same: do not do anything and bind up the process in a thick web of consultation and endless opportunities for litigation delay and uncertainty. Then when it comes to New Zealand First—well I cannot find anything coherent in its minority view. In fact I defy anybody to make any sense out of what it is saying there. It appears that “New Zealand stands on the verge of succumbing to a resource curse scenario.” according to New Zealand First. It sounds quite nice actually “succumbing to a resource curse scenario.” I do not know; I am not sure where it comes from.  
But where we stand in the National Party is getting on with bringing in legislation to fill a gap in our regulatory environment and doing so in a practical and workable way that recognises that New Zealanders want and demand an effective economy which means being open to using our natural resources. At the same time they treasure our natural environment and expect that our legislation seeks to strike a reasonable balance and practical balance and I have every confidence—I have every confidence—that the Environmental Protection Authority will make the judgments rationally and with due caution as is outlined in this legislation. It is worth remembering that up till now the environmental effects of activities within this area have been very narrowly considered and the Resource Management Act provides environmental protection only to the 12-mile limit. This bill extends that protection right out to 200 miles and to the continental shelf which is a major advance.  
The bill provides a strong and effective framework to ensure that the processes are in place to assess and manage adverse environmental effects in our oceans to provide greater certainty to investors and existing interests to meet New Zealand’s international obligations—notwithstanding the complaints made on the other side—and to do this in the most efficient and effective way possible. The bill does not intend to be a Resource Management Act of the seas. The Resource Management Act was designed for predominantly land-based issues reflecting a multitude of interacting parties. It would not make sense when you are dealing with maybe a dozen such cases in an area that is 20 times the size of New Zealand and indeed is the fourth or fifth largest area in the world in terms of an exclusive economic zone. The current levels of activity on the continental shelf are low and indications as I said suggest that we might not have more than 10 applications. To this end clause 19 sets out a general duty to avoid remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects. This includes a duty to provide training and supervision to all employees to ensure compliance with the legislation regulations and consent conditions as well as sufficient resources and establishing appropriate management systems. An impact assessment will form the basis of all consent applications so that the EPA—the Environmental Protection Authority—can assess the effects of the environment and existing interests. The Environmental Protection Authority will be the decision maker.  
All in all I think this bill is a major advance in terms of the environmental legislation in this country. It does strike an effective balance. It shows that the Government does understand that we live in a real world where we have to make a living. We have to make some use of the resources that we have available to us. It just shows you know that some parties are aware of that and other parties talk about catching up with Australia and growing the economy but when it comes down to it when pieces of legislation comes into the House they are always in favour of ones that put roadblocks in the way of every bit of economic progress that this country needs and deserves. I stand for this and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.