Dyson Ruth: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4795. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is with some disappointment actually that I join my colleagues in the Labour and Green parties to oppose the progress of this legislation the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill because it is certainly an area where strong legislative protection was needed and this bill tragically fails despite huge efforts from various parties around the House and from those with expertise in this area from outside our Parliament who have really really tried hard. 
I am disappointed that the Minister for the Environment failed to take the opportunity of being a new Minister in this portfolio. She is not a brand new Minister—she has been a Minister for a little while—but in this environmental portfolio she was very new and in fact inherited this legislation. She therefore had a huge opportunity to say: “Well I’m new in this job.” She could take a step back have a look see what the submissions on this bill have said see what the other parties are saying see what the experts from around New Zealand and internationally are saying see what our international commitments are and how this legislation fits and then say: “Well we haven’t quite got it right and there are a few amendments that could be made.” 
That would actually have resulted in the whole of Parliament supporting this legislation which I think not only would have been a good thing for the process and the outcome of the legislation itself but would have sent a very strong message from the New Zealand Parliament about the way we consider our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf should be treated. But no the Minister unfortunately—and I do not understand why she did this because it does not seem to me to be her normal approach—just really refused to engage in constructive engagement on the flaws in this debate and instead bowled ahead with it. So on that basis and as I say with some disappointment I will be voting against this legislation along with my Labour colleagues and I know the Green Party as well. 
We opposed this legislation at the first reading and that was quite a big debate we had. Some of us held out great hope that there would be enough changes made at the Local Government and Environment Committee and through the Committee of the whole House on this legislation that we would be in a position to support it. But actually in the end those who said it was so fundamentally flawed when it was first brought before the House have been proven to be right. It is a missed opportunity and with something as important as this it is really a puzzle. I know it is a puzzle to the submitters on this legislation. It is a puzzle as to why Ministers do not take the opportunity not just to get legislation right but also to make themselves look better than they actually may appear. If they have not taken that opportunity I frankly do not understand it. 
We agree that a strong legislative framework is needed to regulate and manage the activities that are undertaken in the exclusive economic zone and in the continental shelf. This bill does not provide adequate protection for the environment. We heard during the first stages of this bill this tedious mantra from the Government—which I hope has been changed now with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper—about having to balance protection of the environment with economic development. Well sometimes you have got to do a little more than that. Sometimes you have to have a principled approach. You have to say that some things are so important that despite being able to make money despite being able to benefit economically—usually for a small number of people—and even despite quite a big opportunity for economic development the destruction of our conservation or our environment is so important that we will forgo that opportunity. There is no such thing as balance if you are talking about destruction. 
I was delighted to see that tired oft-repeated mantra being put to bed by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100. She has taken a slightly more tentative step forward than she may have but at least a step forward in saying there may be some environmental bottom lines that we think are beyond the balancing approach. I want to commend her for that. But when this bill was first introduced that was all we heard—that we could not have environmental protection as the fundamental frame for this bill. In fact it did not have environmental protection—really obvious—as an outcome that was desired let alone required as part of the legislation. So if you are talking about fundamental flaws that had to be one. If the bill’s aim is to have environmental protection for the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf but that is not the purpose and the outcome required of the legislation one would assume a slightly fundamental flaw. 
What is the reason that we were so supportive of this regulatory framework? Well it is really obvious: there is an increasing interest in oil and gas exploration in New Zealand and the most important thing therefore is to have a really robust framework one that has been well considered one that has the different perspectives put into it and one that says that our environmental protection is fundamental and we do not want to put it at risk. There are some types of exploration that we would warmly welcome. There are many parts of New Zealand we would warmly welcome it in. But without that framework of protection one that the industry is really clear about and one that the enforcers of the legislation are really clear about then we are doomed to disaster. We have already had enough near risks and near misses in New Zealand. We have seen some devastating outcomes from incidents overseas where they have not had that strong framework—and not just a framework but an understanding of the framework and enforcement of the framework. So that is a very good reason why we needed this legislative framework because we know that there is an increasing interest in both oil exploration and gas exploration in New Zealand. 
It is not just the industry and the enforcers who need that framework. In my view every single member of the public of New Zealand our citizens needs to have the confidence that if applications are put in for this sort of exploration we have the robust framework for consideration of those applications and then if something goes wrong we have clear liabilities and we have clear responses to deal with any incidents that happen. 
 It seemed to me that this Government quite sadly demonstrated once again that it knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. That is really quite in opposition to the way that most New Zealanders feel about the parts of our country that are most special to us the parts of our land and of our sea that are most special to us—let alone the potential damage that can be done to one of our major industries and that is the fishing industry. It did not seem to have any weight to bear on the consideration when this bill was first drafted. 
As I mentioned earlier we had hoped that the Minister would be open to working constructively with us on this legislation and making amendments that would provide the robust framework that I mentioned we need so desperately and I am really disappointed that she is not. I hope that as she gains confidence in her environmental portfolio she will have the ability to stretch across the political divide and work with members of other parties because actually all of us have constructive ideas. We do not always agree with each other—that is fairly obvious otherwise we would all be in one great middle-of-the-road political party—but we do have constructive ideas to offer and when that is done with an agreed outcome I think that it would be better for this Parliament if the Minister would engage with us in the future. 
We lodged six Supplementary Order Papers and I want to commend my colleagues who did that. Every single one of those six Supplementary Order Papers was voted down by the Government. We put the preservation of the environment as the principal obligation in this legislation. How could you vote against that? We made sure that there would be no doubt that the legislation would comply with our international obligations. We ensured that the cautious approach that is advocated in this bill would be replaced with the widely recognised precautionary approach. There does not seem to be anything in those Supplementary Order Papers that a thinking person could vote against and yet every single member of the Government voted against our six Supplementary Order Papers. Had those Supplementary Order Papers and the other amendments the Minister has proposed all been included we may have been able to rethink our position and support the bill. That would have been my preference. So again I say it is with great disappointment that the Minister and this bill have fallen well short of the mark and I will be voting against it.