Sage Eugenie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sage Eugenie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4800. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. The Green Party supported the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill at its first reading because we recognised the need for an effective environmental management regime for the oceans but we voted against it at its second reading and will be voting against it today because this bill is not adequate to do that job. Before explaining why I would like to thank all of the submitters. There were a number of very detailed and constructive submissions that made very good suggestions as to how to amend the bill. Unfortunately a lot of those suggestions did not get taken up. We would also like to thank the officials from the Ministry for the Environment and the officials of the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Our reliance on dirty fossil fuels is the major contributor to human-induced climate change and we must accelerate our move away from our dependence on fossil fuels. Yet this bill does nothing to address climate change and in fact provides a key platform for this Government’s “fossil fool” agenda to open up the exclusive economic zone to oil exploration. As Greenpeace said recently: “New Zealand is missing the opportunity to share in the economic and jobs bonanza created by clean energy due to the Government passing laws to promote its fossil fuel agenda at the expense of clean energy”. This is one of those laws. The Government blocked the Green Party Supplementary Order Paper that would have allowed the Minister in making regulations and the Environmental Protection Authority when deciding on marine consent applications to take into account how an activity contributed to climate change. It is entirely appropriate for a national-level body such as the Environmental Protection Authority to consider how the quest for extreme oil such as deep-water oil contributes to and exacerbates climate change. 
We oppose this bill because it takes insufficient account of our responsibility under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to preserve and protect the marine environment. That is because the suite of matters in clauses 33 and 59 do not give priority to the preservation and protection of the marine environment as the convention requires. Certainly decision makers under both of those clauses are required to take into account the importance of protecting biological diversity and the integrity of marine ecosystems but the Minister and the Environmental Protection Authority must give exactly the same weight to these as they give to the economic benefits of activities that are applying for consent. It is that fact that there is no priority given to environmental matters that means that the bill fails to implement the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It would have been very easy to amend the bill so that it was much more consistent with those international responsibilities. 
We oppose it because of the very generous provision in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 the “Anadarko amendment” that potentially allows a company that is planning exploration activities in the exclusive economic zone to do this without getting a marine consent. 
Jacqui Dean 
: They do it now. 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: Yes they do do it at the moment. This bill is designed to set in place a consenting regime but the new transitional provisions which extend the transitional period from 1 May 2013 as it was in the original bill to 1 May 2014 give companies like the Texan giant Anadarko and the Austrian oil giant OMV if they have an allocation permit the right to actually go ahead with their oil exploration without getting a marine consent under this legislation. What is the point of the legislation if we have got such generous transitional provisions? 
It is also inadequate because although the original purpose clause of balancing has been improved by the Minister—and we commend that—to one of sustainable management under the purpose clause clause 6 on its own unlike the Resource Management Act and section 104 decision makers do not have to make their decision subject to the purpose of sustainable management. So it is completely different from the Resource Management Act. 
The bill has got very limited provisions around implementing the Crown’s Treaty responsibilities as Rino Tirikatene noted and there is no general obligation to implement and give effect to the Treaty. There were a number of constructive suggestions made by Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and others to provide for a cultural impact assessment. Those suggestions were not taken on board by the Government because it blocked the Green Supplementary Order Papers. 
One of the other reasons is the way in which the Environment Court is sidelined. It has made a very valuable contribution to the development of case law and policy under the Resource Management Act and there is no opportunity for that here.