Williams Andrew: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williams Andrew: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3680. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. New Zealand First will oppose this bill in its current form. Although we see many positive aspects of the bill in that it will provide a long-overdue environmental management regime for New Zealand’s 200-mile limit known as the EEZ or the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf we do have concerns about some aspects of the bill.  
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea known as UNCLOS New Zealand has an obligation to manage and protect the natural resources of this 200-mile exclusive economic zone. This is an area 20 times larger than the land mass of New Zealand. It is the fifth-largest economic zone in the world. It is enormous. New Zealand with only 4.5 million people is fortunate to have such a large area of ocean and seabed under our environmental management. This bill will include the environmental management of activities such as mining of the seabed energy generation carbon capture and storage oil exploration and extraction and also marine farming.  
New Zealand First does however have concerns in relation to the fundamental purpose of the bill as did many submitters on the bill who came to the select committee. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I have filed a New Zealand First minority report as have other Opposition members of the select committee arguing that the purpose of this bill is a contradiction in terms. The purpose of the bill states that it “seeks to achieve a balance between the protection of the environment and economic development” which are two countervailing and at times totally contradictory forces. The bill would have it that there is a balance and that these two factors will compete on a level playing field as if it is a 50:50 proposition.  
For instance it allows deep sea drilling of oil gas and minerals provided that its contribution to economic development outweighs its adverse environmental effects. How would you quantify that proposition? What if the proposition is determined to be greatly in favour of the economic benefits but with significant adverse environmental effects say on a 70:30 split for example? What would that sort of balance achieve in terms of the outcomes? Would this Government then steamroll it through—as it does in so many areas—because it would say: “Oh it’s still balanced. It’s 70 percent in favour of the economic returns. Therefore you know the economic returns are balanced out by the effects on the environment.”?  
We have seen too often with this Government that there is an eagerness to grab the short-term dollar such as with the asset sales over the long-term adverse effects on the New Zealand economy and the people of New Zealand. After all this Government is happy to steamroll through all those State assets when polls show that at the present time something in the order of more than 70 percent of New Zealanders oppose those asset sales. Would this Government conveniently ignore those adverse environmental effects because the dollar signs all look so tantalisingly appealing? Would it do that? Would it sell out the environment for a quick money trader’s buck? You betcha it would. You betcha it would.  
New Zealand First believes that the default setting should not be a balance but should be robust environmental protection introducing economic development strategies conditional upon minimal environmental risk. This should be non-negotiable. New Zealand First is not against economic development if it is environmentally sustainable but this bill could allow intensive exploration of offshore oil gas and minerals to push the boundaries overriding environmental risk calculations. The risk of environmental catastrophe is huge. Insurance and financial penalties are not high enough deterrents as the Gulf of Mexico disaster clearly demonstrated.  
In times of economic recession as we have now there is also huge pressure to create jobs pay off debt sell off assets increase value in financial returns and exploit natural resources. There is also a subtle difference between writing legislation not to create barriers to investors and actually encouraging foreign investment. Again the bill would seem to tilt the balance in favour of fiscal advantage over our environmental endowment. The financial benefits are readily quantifiable in dollar terms now. This is instant gratification against the long-term devastation of New Zealand’s environmental and economic future. The idea that the Government can pick winners has been proven wrong time and time again.  
New Zealand stands on the verge of succumbing to what is known—and this is a term that is internationally recognised—as a resource curse scenario. This is the easy fix temptation to focus on exploitation of natural resources which could deplete skills employment and investment money from other major sectors. For instance under a resource curse scenario the real long-term economic advantages of tourism could suffer as could New Zealand’s pristine image because of short-term exploitation of our marine environment.  
The bill should replace malleable concepts such as “sustainable development” “precautionary approach” “favour caution” and “adaptive management” to eliminate unintentional ambiguity. Giving too much room for movement could backfire in appeals to the High Court and the inevitable court battles. The legal fraternity have pointed out to the select committee inconsistencies with international law so this bill could be a field day for lawyers in the future in terms of our 200-mile zone.  
In view of the above concerns New Zealand First is unable to support this bill in its present form because it potentially lowers the environmental protection threshold in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. New Zealand cannot afford to jeopardise its extraordinary marine environment. We must get this bill right because it has huge implications for our nation. If we get it wrong we might see New Zealand’s favoured geographic position on the globe in the clean waters of the South Pacific Ocean being subjected to huge environmental risk the consequences of which could have far-reaching effects on our marine environment on our coastline and on our “100% Pure New Zealand” image as a tourist destination.  
New Zealand is a maritime nation. The marine environment with its ecosystem sustains thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in income each year from a wealth of industries—tourism fisheries and energy being just some of them. New Zealand has a unique association with the marine environment dating back to the initial arrival of Maori and more recently Europeans. Throughout the history of New Zealand it has been a source of pleasure of food and of transport. The oceans around New Zealand and around the world are increasingly being exploited for their huge mineral and food wealth. New Zealand First in its election manifesto clearly stated that we support urgent introduction of interim standards for drilling and exploratory work in New Zealand waters a requirement that all drilling and exploration projects in New Zealand waters be subject to public consultation and setting up and training appropriate to the risk rapid response teams to deal with maritime environmental emergencies that can be deployed at short notice in New Zealand or abroad.  
New Zealand First will oppose this bill in its present form and urges the Minister for the Environment to agree to amendments that will provide the greater environmental safeguards being sought by New Zealand First and other Opposition parties while still allowing for economic development within the 200-mile zone but ensuring that the environmental risks are put there as paramount as first safeguards in the process. Thank you.