Dean Jacqui: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4646. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Good choice. Good choice Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on Part 3 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member who I think genuinely believed that she had the call but my understanding is that when this debate was last interrupted there was a member in the middle of a call or getting towards the end of their call but had not concluded. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well all I can say to the honourable member is that according to the drill sheet that I have here it said that we had reached Part 3 and the question is that Part 3 stand part. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I may be able to clarify. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do Mr Robertson. 
Grant Robertson 
: I was the member on my feet at that time. I understand that I had 5 seconds remaining on my call during which time I would have asked the Government to support Charles Chauvel’s Supplementary Order Paper 95. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I guess that that is a good one. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill Part 3 is where the rubber effectively hits the road with this piece of legislation because it is the part that deals with or provides for objections to the Environmental Protection Authority and also appeals to the High Court on questions of law. Subpart 2 of Part 3 provides for enforcement of the bill by providing for the Environment Court to issue enforcement orders and that is under clause 113 and also—and I am about to refer to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 here—offences and penalties under clause 124 and clause 125 which of course with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper have increased from $600000 through to $10 million. It also deals with the appointment of enforcement officers under clause 129. So it is a really important portion of the exclusive economic zone legislation because it provides the backstop. It provides the accountability for any activities that are consented under this new regime in the exclusive economic zone and the extended continental shelf. 
Just for a bit of context about why this is so necessary I think it is probably good for the Committee to remember that the current regulatory regime has got some significant gaps in it which means that there are a number of activities that are currently occurring inside the exclusive economic zone that are in effect unregulated. So the assessment of the effects of activities—that is other than fishing in the exclusive economic zone—on seafloor habitats and on biodiversity which might be as a result of seabed mining is lacking. There is a gap in the assessment of the effects of activities on biodiversity in the water column. That refers to the effects of seismic surveys on marine life. None of those considerations are currently taken account of in legislation. 
Also there is a gap in the assessment of the effects of new activities on existing interests—for example the effects of a petroleum platform on surrounding fishing and shipping—and of the management of the cumulative effects of all activities in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf as they are regulated under different and multiple regimes with a differing and variable ability to take into account the sorts of activities in decision making. So there is a gap there. In fact I would argue that there is quite a yawning gap. This Government took action back in 2006 when Cabinet proceeded to the development of a legislative framework to tidy up the gaps in the regulations around activities in the exclusive economic zone. 
Why are these gaps a problem? There is not terribly much that happens in the exclusive economic zone and we have been told that and we understand that. So why are these gaps a problem and why is it so necessary to have inserted in this bill parts like Part 3? This part provides for objections to the Environmental Protection Authority which is the determining body of activities along with appeals to the High Court on points of law and also provides for and describes offences and penalties. Why is that so important and why is it a critical part of this exclusive economic zone bill? Well there is of course the potential for unregulated activities such as we have now could have in the future and did have during the term of the previous Labour Government to cause environmental harm. That environmental harm could impact on a lot of things: on marine life on marine habitats and also on marine biodiversity. Because of the nature of some of the activities that occurred occur and might occur in the exclusive economic zone some of those impacts could be quite severe—for example oil spills and the destruction due to dredging of the seabed of significant benthic communities. 
There is also—and I think this is pretty critical and germane to this bill—no mechanism for ensuring public participation in decision making around these activities. So it is beyond me why Labour and Greens are opposing this bill. I can only come to the conclusion that Labour and the Greens in this House and in this Parliament are quite satisfied with the 9 years of the previous Labour Government and the state of affairs where there are yawning regulatory gaps in this legislation. They are opposing this exclusive economic zone bill and I can only conclude that they actually do not care that much about what is happening in the exclusive economic zone. Maybe because it is so far out to sea they do not particularly care about what happens out in the exclusive economic zone. Well I can assure the Committee that this party does and that is why this party has brought this exclusive economic zone bill to the House. 
Just briefly on Part 3 the enforcement of offences and penalties is very closely described in some detail. If members would have a look at clause 113 they would see that it is quite explicit in what it requires people who are undertaking activities in the exclusive economic zone to do. For example if there is “an order made by the Environment Court or an Environment Judge” it has the effect of requiring the person “to stop doing something”. That is just a few words in this bill but what that might mean is quite a significant penalty and impact on some activity in the exclusive economic zone. Part 3 is a significant and substantive part of this bill. Thank you.