Barry Maggie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4798. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I rise with great joy to speak to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill in its third reading. Unlike the rambling excuse for a speech by the previous speaker Ruth Dyson which was sad bewildered like Eeyore—you know truly the previous speaker typifies the tired old failed Labour policies of old. There was that element of condescension that do-nothing attitude the sanctimoniousness the silly braying when Labour members cannot think of anything clever or of substance to say. This is something that we have got used to but I would have to say that so principled is the last speaker as part of the failed Labour regime for 9 years—plus plus plus—that Labour members do nothing; they do nothing when the environment is at risk. They do nothing but sit on their principles keep themselves warm with their disappointed condescension and think they have the moral high ground. They are in fact doomed to the Opposition benches for a long while to come because New Zealanders are not as silly as they are. 
This bill is as others have said before me an essential piece of legislation. It corrects the omissions the void left by Labour. There were something like 16 I think it was licences granted with no regulation around them. We feel that this is a very important piece of legislation and it needs to come into effect without any further delay. I completely disagree with our political opponents politicking around this. As far as our international obligations are concerned we have honoured them and many people agree with us. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is certainly something we have taken into great account in putting together this piece of legislation and right through the select committee process. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade agrees with us our advisers agree with us and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment also agrees that this is something that is favourable and protects our environment adequately. Who are the odd ones out? Labour indeed and the Greens of course as well—the unholy coalition that may well doom us to terrible economic woe if they ever do get the Treasury benches but it is unlikely because as I have said I feel that New Zealanders are an intelligent lot who are not likely to make those sorts of mistakes again. 
I am on the Local Government and Environment Committee which has heard all the submissions. I personally would like to thank the people who came to us and made submissions. I think many of them clarified some of the murkier areas around this vital piece of legislation. Their contribution was well-thought-through and very acceptable to us. I think the challenging robust debates that occurred within the select committee itself were useful and I commend the Minister for the Environment for listening carefully to the people on the opposing sides for consulting with them individually for listening to their concerns and for coming up with a Supplementary Order Paper that has strengthened this legislation. So unlike the naysayers on the other side I am very much of the view that the robust process has resulted in an excellent piece of legislation. 
As the Minister outlined earlier the purpose has been clarified. It is aligning the purpose of the exclusive economic zone with the Resource Management Act a little more than it was and that is an acknowledgment of some of those concerns. The penalties have been strengthened as well going up from $600000 to $10 million—so you follow the rules or you reap some very serious consequences indeed. There is also certainty provided for investors and workable constraints for the industry. Sustainable management and balance were very important considerations in weighing up what would make this a good piece of legislation. Minister Adams a lawyer herself did not want to see extensive litigation around this and I think that she and the select committee have actually arrived at a piece of legislation that will serve New Zealand well. 
Also the transition process has been very well-thought-through. For me it is a vital thing representing as I do the North Shore which is bounded on three sides by water. We feel very strongly that the Hauraki marine gulf needs to be protected. All of our coastal waters need to be protected but we also need to be able to unlock the enormous potential of our oil and mineral reserves if they are there and if we need them. The importance of course is in protecting the environment and that is what we will do because we are committed to it. We are not just going to sit on our principles and let the whole thing slide as Labour did for so many years. We are absolutely of the view that this is a good piece of legislation and must be passed. 
I conclude with a reminder of why it should be supported. This is a bill that provides a strong and effective framework to ensure that there are processes in place that will enable us to assess and very important manage adverse environmental effects in our oceans. It will also provide much greater certainty to the investors and to existing interests. It will meet our obligations as I have said under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and it will do things in the most efficient and effective way possible and I hope without further delay. If our political opponents Labour and the Greens really did want to protect our environment they would support this bill. I support it unreservedly. I feel it is fit for purpose and I commend it to the House.