Dean Jacqui: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: 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.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill in its second reading. Just perhaps to settle the House down and to note the purpose of the bill it sets up an environmental management regime for New Zealand’s economic zone which of course is the part between the 12-mile limit and the 200-mile limit and also the continental shelf. What the bill does is provide a legislative framework that is lacking at the moment—in fact it is missing altogether—and puts processes in place to assess and to manage environmental effects in our oceans to provide greater certainty to investors of which there are a few and also existing interests of which there also are a few. It is also there to assist in meeting New Zealand’s international obligations. The bill aims and I believe achieves in its aim to do this in the most efficient and effective way possible. It is this Government’s desire in the absence of legislation for the exclusive economic zone area to do this without delay.  
This bill is not and is not intended to be the Resource Management Act of the seas if you like. The Resource Management Act was designed prominently as a piece of legislation relating to land-based issues. That piece of legislation the Resource Management Act reflects a multitude of interacting parties and interacting issues so therefore it would not make sense in our relatively uncrowded—and it is relatively uncrowded—marine environment. Current levels of activity in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf are low and indications are that New Zealand will not see a large number of new operations in the next 10 years. In fact the number of activities needing consent will amount to say a handful in each year. 
 Clause 19 which I just want to briefly talk about sets out a general duty to avoid remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects. This includes a duty to provide training and supervision to all employees to ensure compliance with the legislation regulations and consent conditions as well as sufficient resources and also to establish appropriate management systems. These things are critical in the management of our exclusive economic zone. An impact assessment will form the basis for all consent applications so that the Environmental Protection Agency—the EPA—can assess the effects on the environment and also on existing interests. The Environmental Protection Authority will be the decision maker for marine consents and that is the difference from land-based activities which are governed by the Resource Management Act. In this instance it is the Environmental Protection Authority that will be the decision maker for all marine consents.  
Finally in my brief intervention in this debate it is interesting to note that between 1999 and 2008 46 wells were drilled in the exclusive economic zone with no legislation in place to protect the environment. It is disappointing therefore that both Labour and the Greens intend to vote against this bill. They obviously prefer a legislative vacuum. Thank you.