Mackey Moana: Marine Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Marine Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13638. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Well I think given the debate that has happened in the Chamber today an appropriate title for this bill the Marine Legislation Bill might be the “Marine Legislation (Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any Worse) Amendment Bill”. When the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act which this bill amends was passed through Parliament Labour was the only party that voted against it at every single reading. Then at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee other political parties realised just how dire the legislation was and that it was likely to be inconsistent with our commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; that it was woefully inadequate in terms of economic protection compared with the Resource Management Act which is the legislation that governs economic activity in our territorial waters; that we were removing the ability to appeal to the Environment Court on points of substance; and that basically it was a general greasing of the wheels for industry to make sure that projects that potentially would not have got through under the Resource Management Act process which is far more robust would get through under this very very permissive piece of legislation.When you consider that the line between our territorial waters and our exclusive economic zone is jurisdictional only—it is not based on any environmental factors any scientific analysis or any risk factors; it is just that within 12 nautical miles is our territorial waters and beyond it is not—you would have to question the sanity of having two such completely different regimes regulating exactly the same activity operating side by side separated by only an invisible jurisdictional line in the ocean. Well the Labour Party thinks that that is not sensible. We do not see the sense in introducing untested legal terms in the exclusive economic zone. We question why we could not have used the well-known language of the Resource Management Act which has 20 years of case law behind it and which provides certainty for regional councils certaintyfor industry and certainty for communities so that they know what they are dealing with and they know what these legal and environmental tests are. We said “Why can we not just use those terms—mirror them in the exclusive economic zone legislation?” and the answer is that again it was intended to be more permissive than the Resource Management Act and not intended to mirror the Resource Management Act.Labour raised concerns the entire way through the process. We were very disappointed. We made approaches to Minister Adams saying to her that no one in the country whether they be from industry or environmental NGOs wanted to see this kind of pendulum swinging of legislation between National and Labour Governments. We have seen it too often on crucial pieces of economic legislation like the emissions trading scheme and the Crown Minerals Act—and it was not just Labour; it was a meeting that we had with the Greens and New Zealand First. We said “Look we actually think that there is a lot we could lock down in common on this exclusive economic zone legislation. How about we try to do it? Find something that none of us are entirely happy with none of us are 100 percent happy with but we can all live with and then give that kind of assurance that stability that it is not going to change.” and we were rebuffed. That I think was very unfortunate.But the reason I think that this bill could be called the “Marine Legislation (Just When You Think It Couldn’t Get Any Worse) Amendment Bill” is that at that time we really did think that well this was pretty bad and that we were going to have to make changes to it. We signalled clearly what those changes were going to be. No one saw this coming down the pipeline. We were not told at the select committee. In fact at the select committee it was reinforced for us time and time again that all these concerns that had been raised about the legislation and all the concerns that were raised in submissions—all the concerns that were being raised by councils that were being raised by environmental NGOs that were being raised by technical experts and that were being raised by the general public—would be addressed through the marine consent process which allowed for public submissions. That is what we were told.Minister Phil Heatley the then Minister of Energy and Resources was inKaikōura where there was significant public concern about the block offer that was being pursued off the coast. Given their extensive whale-watching interests and given how important that particular industry is to the economy inKaikōura the people there asked Minister Heatley why this legislation was so weak. He said to them: “You will get to have your say through a public submission process when the application for a marine consent off the coast ofKaikōura is being considered.” That was the promise that the previous Minister of Energy and Resources made less than a year ago to the people ofKaikōura and then to the people of New Zealand.Well I do not know whether he did not read it properly or whether he was lying or whether he was—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You cannot say that.MOANA MACKEY: Sorry Mr Chair. I do not know whether he was being—Andrew Little: Wrong—he was wrong.MOANA MACKEY: —yes whether he was wrong—Meka Whaitiri: Misleading.MOANA MACKEY: —or whether he knew he was being misleading at the time or whether in fact someone had got in the ear of the new Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister for the Environment since that legislation has been passed and said: “You know that pesky process where we actually have to listen to people who have concerns and who want to have their say? Or to experts who have not been engaged in the process so far who think that maybe when we are considering an application for an activity as controversial as offshore oil and gas exploration we shouldnot rely solely on industry data maybe we should not rely solely on industry research and maybe it is good to have a contestable process where people can challenge the science and challenge the data and challenge the facts that have been put through by the applicant—people who think maybe that might make for a better process that No. 1 could result in decisions being made based on all the information available not just the information from one side.That is particularly the case when you consider that the Environmental Protection Authority does not have an investigative capability in there and that it is very new in what it does and also the fact that when the Environmental Protection Authority legislation was going through this Parliament Labour put up an amendment to make environmental protection one of the purposes of the Environmental Protection Authority and the National Government voted it down. That leads us to have some concerns about whether the Environmental Protection Authority is actually about environmental protection or whether it is solely about economic development at any cost.On this side of the Chamber we see the value of a submission process. I do not think there is a member of this House who has sat on a select committee who does not see the value in that process. They accept that even in an organisation like the Environmental Protection Authority you are not going to have a monopoly on all knowledge. There are going to be factors that could be brought through a submission process. That is why very few pieces of legislation go to a select committee in this House and come back to Parliament unchanged. It is because we take on board the points that have been made and the comments that have been made and the same is true of a process that consents a very technical and controversial activity like offshore oil and gas exploration. To have that taken away not only undermines confidence in the legislation not only undermines confidence in the Government and not only undermines confidence in the process but also means that information that would have been put on the table in front of an agency that is brand new in front of an agency that does not have any investigative capability of its own is now no longer going to happen.Minister Amy Adams said: “Well that’s because we write legislation assuming that nothing’s going to go wrong.” Well I am sorry but I do not know whether the Gulf of Mexico disaster happened just to other people and not to Minister Amy Adams but it did because things do go wrong. In terms of legislation that consents risky activities even though the risks may be considered low in exploratory drilling—drilling of exploratory wells—we cannot get past the fact that the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon disaster was in an exploratory well. It was in a well about which Minister Adams has said: “They should not have to go through a full consent process because the risk is so low and I write legislation for things always going right not for things going wrong.” That is not good enough.The National Party appears to be the only political party that has not taken another look at its policy in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster in the wake of theRena disaster and in the wake of the Pike River disaster. It has not done anything to reinforce our emergency response capability. My colleague Andrew Little has been doing a lot of work on what a rapid response capability would look like maybe based somewhere like Taranaki where they have a lot of experience in this and maybe actually having some equipment in New Zealand ready to go in case something goes wrong. Having the expertise training people on a regular basis—surely these are lessons that we should have learnt from tragic recent experiences that have had enormous environmental and economic impacts. But it appears that the National Party members have not learnt.The reason that they refuse to do anything and that they want to keep their heads buried in the sands is because they have no plan B. Oil and gas exploration is their entire regional economic plan and if it does not pan out then they are kind of screwedand we in the provinces are kind of screwed. I am sorry but I think that the provinces of New Zealand deserve a plan B from this Government. If it wants to charge ahead with oil and gas exploration that is its right as a Government. If it wants to weaken environmental protection it will be held to account for that at the next election but we deserve a plan B in provincial New Zealand. Because if this does not pan out—and it has not; we have been told on the East Coast—David Bennett: Come to Hamilton.MOANA MACKEY: “Come to Hamilton.” says Mr Bennett. OK—Andrew Little: That’s plan C.MOANA MACKEY: That is plan C. Plan C my colleague says is to move to Hamilton.