Robertson Grant: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4077. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I have got a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair the Minister for Primary Industries in relation to the way in which Part 2 around ballast water relates to New Zealand’s activity in the exclusive economic zone and in particular in terms of— 
Shane Ardern 
: There’s a big area of that around Wellington. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well it is. Mr Ardern is right to say that it is a big area. That is a good clear way of describing it Mr Ardern: big. That is correct. The exclusive economic zone is a very very large area and it is currently the subject of a piece of legislation that is before the House the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill.  
My question for the Minister is around the relationship of this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill to that other piece of legislation the exclusive economic zone bill because there are a number of areas reading through the bill—particularly new Part 19A in clause 76 which has been included here—that I think have some issues sitting alongside that exclusive economic zone bill. It actually starts with the title of new Part 19A “Protection of marine environment from ballast water”. One of the issues with the exclusive economic zone bill is the absence of language around protection and preservation of the marine environment in that bill. 
In fact the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams in the second reading debate spent a significant amount of time telling the House that that kind of language which comes from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was not going to be necessary in any legislation around the exclusive economic zone bill. So I am somewhat confused to find here in this new Part 19A a whole new provision entitled “Protection of marine environment from ballast water”. I am confused because that language is now not going to appear in the exclusive economic zone legislation and that specific area is mentioned as part of new section 246B(2) which tells us that “Subsection (1) applies to … (i) the territorial sea of New Zealand; or (ii) the internal waters of New Zealand; or (iii) the exclusive economic zone of New Zealand;”. 
New Zealand’s ability to make law in the exclusive economic zone actually arises from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The fact that we are signatories too and have ratified that convention is the very thing that allows us to make law on that. What we on this side of the House are looking for here is consistency in the way that the law treats the exclusive economic zone. There are a number of pieces of legislation that will affect New Zealand or any economic activity in our exclusive economic zone. One of them is this piece of law another is the exclusive economic zone bill itself and thirdly there are other pieces of legislation like the Crown Minerals Act for instance. So I think the Minister in the chair could easily take a call here and let us know what work he has done or perhaps even the Minister responsible for the exclusive economic zone bill Amy Adams could take a call and let us know what work has been done to make these two pieces of legislation consistent. 
As we go down the further measures here in clause 76 to new section 246C around offences I notice in there a set of fines that have been listed for the discharge of ballast water. In this case it could be in the exclusive economic zone. These fines are quite different from the set of fines that are now in the exclusive economic zone bill. In fact on this side of the House we have concerns about whether or not the fines regime and the penalties regime within the exclusive economic zone bill are sufficient and whether it is what we need for the protection and preservation of our marine environment. Again there is a question of consistency here between the exclusive economic zone bill and this bill in terms of the penalties for offences as listed in new section 246C. So the Minister might like to take a call and advise whether or not we are going to have to come back again to the House to reform the biosecurity legislation one more time because of the exclusive economic zone bill which is currently before the House. 
I hope that the Government has taken some time to look at it. I am sure Mr Ardern has been studying the exclusive economic zone bill clause by clause just before bed. When he has got the cocoa he gets out the exclusive economic zone bill and he says: “Is this consistent with the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill?”. 
Shane Ardern 
: I can see the member has. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Absolutely. That is how good my life is Mr Ardern. That is what we do on this side of the House. We look through the legislation and we ask ourselves whether the Government is being consistent here. When I look at the offence provisions that are in new section 246C I think that if they sit alongside the penalties regime in the exclusive economic zone bill we do have some inconsistency. 
The other point that I wanted to make was around the question of the director’s powers to investigate a discharge or the escape of ballast water. I note that obviously we have brand new sections here and I was not on the Primary Production Committee—something I regret Mr Ardern; the fact that I was not there to go through these matters in depth. But these are quite extensive powers that are being given to the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. These powers which are now listed out in new section 246E are quite extensive and I would hope that the Minister could inform us as to whether or not these powers are contained in any other part of the director’s responsibilities. It seems to me that obviously it is an important step to take—to have somebody responsible for protecting the marine environment from the discharge of ballast water—and on this side of the House we obviously support the intent of that. But extending the director’s powers in this way is something that we always need to watch in terms of the power of senior public servants if they are given power to effectively put people in a position where they are charged with offences that have fines of up $200000. 
They are the two points that I was keen to make and keen to seek the Minister’s feedback on.