Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 21 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4616. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Just to pick up where the Minister for the Environment left around the question of penalties in clause 125 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill I want to congratulate the Minister on that amendment. I think as she has noted the change here is a significant one. Even my maths can tell you that moving from $600000 to $10 million there are a lot more zeros and it is certainly something that on this side of the Chamber we are very pleased to see has been included. I think there was a feeling in the Local Government and Environment Committee and in the submissions that came in that the amounts of money that were being considered in terms of penalties simply were not adequate for the possible damage and the seriousness with which this Parliament would view such a matter so I do want to congratulate the Minister on her amendment to that particular clause. 
In the spirit of that I seek her agreement to Moana Mackey’s changes to clause 125(2) (3) and (4) which are outlined on Supplementary Order Paper 103. These are other penalties that we believe should also be increased in order to indicate the seriousness with which we would deal with these— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Yawn! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Sorry is there someone over there who is not enjoying this? No. Under clause 125—sorry to keep Judith Collins but it is only the small matter of the destruction of part of the marine environment. There is no need for the Minister to stay awake for that—none whatsoever! 
Jacqui Dean 
: Protection of the marine environment. Carry on. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Both—the protection actually; that is right Jacqui Dean. Clause 125(2) covers— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Grow up silly boy. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well no I am the one who is actually trying to make a serious point here. Clause 125(2) states: “Every person who commits an offence … is also liable on conviction if the offence is a continuing one to a fine not exceeding $10000 …”. Moana Mackey is proposing for that to be increased to $100000. Clause 125(3) states: “… summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $10000 and if the offence is a continuing one to a further fine not exceeding $1000 for every day …”. Moana Mackey is proposing that that be increased to $10000 every day as well. So these are in line with the amendments that the Minister has already proposed and I would hope that she will see fit to adopt those along with the one that she herself has proposed. 
The other matter in Part 3 that I would like to draw attention to is clause 103 “Appeals on question of law”. On this clause we believe that the Government has taken far too narrow an approach on two specific points. First is the point that appeals can only be on questions of law and not also on questions of fact and second is the place to which appeals may go. In this case it is proposed to be the High Court. My colleague Charles Chauvel has a Supplementary Order Paper that proposes amending both so that appeals can be on the questions of law and fact and also that those appeals should find their way to the Environment Court. 
There is a lack of full appeal rights in this particular law. This is one of those issues where we welcomed the Minister making this bill more consistent with the Resource Management Act in the purpose clause. We did not think it went quite far enough. Here is another example where we believe having more consistency with the Resource Management Act would be the appropriate thing to do particularly around the question of where these appeals should go. The Environment Court was the place under the Resource Management Act that drove the development of case law. It was the place in which there was further policy development as a result of the Environment Court being involved and it does seem to me that in the case of the exclusive economic zone we are going to see a significant amount of case law develop over time and that the Environment Court is the appropriate place for that to go. The question of whether or not the Environmental Protection Authority has the expertise to deal with everything is certainly one that I would raise here but more to the point I think the Environment Court has the experience through the Resource Management Act process to play a very important role here and that is the appropriate place for appeals to go. 
We also do believe that those appeals should be beyond just matters of law. That is a very limiting provision. Again these are going to be significant cases that are going to be taken here. These are going to be people who have concerns that perhaps will not be able to be dealt with through the Environmental Protection Authority processes. There will be occasions on which the Environmental Protection Authority perhaps does not have the competence in law to be able to deal with these matters. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and no progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Report adopted.