Smith Nick: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 21 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4600. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Firstly I want to congratulate the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment on Supplementary Order Paper 100 and the work that she has done to knock this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill into really good shape. I think this is going to be one of the really good bits of environmental legislation that is advanced by this Government. The first question that I would love to have answered by members of the Opposition is where their party was when it did 46 drills during their last period in Government without any exclusive economic zone legislation. For 9 years they sang “Drill baby drill!” without any legislative framework at all. They had 9— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This has been a very good debate so far around the detailed matters contained in the bill. I just urge the member to actually talk to the bill rather than make a political speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: He has not been going for a minute yet and I am sure he will come back to the content of the bill. I will listen very carefully. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I totally understand why Labour is really defensive about this. The truth is that it had 9 years in Government and we have got this gaping hole in our environmental statute in that an area 20 times New Zealand’s land area does not have a proper environmental statute. We campaigned on filling that gap and we are delivering on that promise. I am proud of that and proud of the contribution that we make. It really is a tribute to how pedantic Mr Robertson has become when the fault with this bill— 
Grant Robertson 
: Come on talk to the bill! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me explain. The great difficulty with this bill is rather than talking about the precautionary principle it says that “the Minister must favour caution and environmental protection.” So the great big contribution to environmental protection in New Zealand is an argument over whether the words “must favour caution and environmental protection” are as good as putting into the law the precautionary principle. 
I can understand why our friends in New Zealand First have said they are not going to have a bar of this silly game that Labour is playing dancing on the head of a pin. They know this is good law just as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has come out and said that this is good law. Mr Robertson asks why it is that in terms of this bill we are not using the very specific language that was in the international negotiations at Rio. The simple reason Mr Robertson—and this will be news for you—is that the legal uncertainty over the precautionary principle if we look at principle decisions— 
Grant Robertson 
: Oh come on! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Look you asked the question and when I give you the answer you will not hear us out. If you actually look through court decisions on those that have chosen to put that precautionary principle it creates huge uncertainty. I actually commend the Minister. The language that we have in this bill could not be more plain—could not be more plain—than simply saying that the Minister must favour caution and environmental protection where there is uncertainty. How could it be more clear than that? 
The part I most enjoy in this debate is this point: members opposite have consistently argued that they do not want balance that they do not want to have a piece of legislation that is carefully balancing New Zealand’s economic opportunities in the huge exclusive economic zone with the need for environmental protection. Well I have to say Mr Robertson that I look forward to going to the electors in 2014—and probably 2017 and 2020—and saying that we on this side of the Chamber are balanced and members of the Opposition are not balanced because they are not. They are not balanced. They have consistently argued and when it comes to this issue they have a simplistic view that underrates the economic opportunities that there are for New Zealand within the exclusive economic zone. 
I simply want to support particularly this part. I want to commend the Minister for the great job that she has done. My advice to the Opposition’s environment spokesperson is that he is going to have to do a damned sight better than pedantic arguments over the words “showing caution” or the “precautionary principle” if he really is going to put up a credible argument that this is not damned good law that Parliament should get on and support. I am actually very disappointed that on such a key area of public policy filling a gap in New Zealand’s environmental laws that Labour left for 9 years—