Dyson Ruth: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3684. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I would like to begin my contribution on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill—have I got any time left; it is a long name on this bill—by reiterating the points that the member who has just resumed her seat Nikki Kaye concluded with and that is to acknowledge all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who have examined this bill and the officials who worked pretty rigorously to try to make improvements. But unfortunately they were not able to make enough improvements for us to support the bill and that is a huge regret to me.  
I am really sorry that is the case in an area where legislation was clearly needed where all parties throughout the House—even I understand the ACT Party—have identified that there is a gap in our legislative framework. We did not have environmental protections and also the security for work to be done in the exclusive economic zone without any huge litigation. We did not have that regime in place as we do on land with the Resource Management Act. Yet here was the opportunity for that legislation to fill that vacuum and it was found to be fundamentally flawed.  
 The reason for that was that in the purpose clause clause 10. Rather than setting out what would meet our meet our international obligations in what in my view is not only a legal but also a moral responsibility of a Government to ensure as a primary focus the protection of our environment this bill does that old National Party trick which is to talk about providing a balance. Well actually that is not what a protective regime is about. A protective regime is saying that something has to come first and for us it is the environment.  
We want economic activity as the member for Auckland Central has indicated—we are supportive of that—but not at the cost of our environment because you have only one chance. Some things cannot be repaired. Some things cannot be returned to the way they were. Therefore you have a regime in place that says: “Yes we want economic activity but we will not do it to the detriment of our environment.” That comes first and this legislation gives that opportunity away. So it is with some sadness that I say we cannot support this bill.  
What a delight it would be to have every party in Parliament giving a clear message to people who want to have economic development in the exclusive economic zone. For those—I guess all of us—who seek to ensure that that special environment is protected what a wonderful thing it would be for every party in Parliament to say that this is the way to do it and to support it. But instead despite the huge efforts of the various parties we have this bill. I want to acknowledge Andrew Williams who has just resumed his seat and I have heard Eugenie Sage speak on this bill as well as my parliamentary Labour colleagues. I want to acknowledge their hard work in trying to get some genuine progress made so that we could offer support to this bill as it progresses. I am sure that the environmental groups who have today made public a letter to the current Minister for the Environment Amy Adams feel a deep sadness as well. This is an opportunity lost. So today the Environmental Defence Society the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand and the Ecologic Foundation have released an open letter expressing their sadness. They have even said that they have proposed alternative wording for the bill to the Minister which would mean they could celebrate and support its progress. But for some reason the Minister said no and I do not understand it. Perhaps she has not yet got the confidence in her new portfolio that she had in previous ones.  
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society conservation advocate Claire Browning actually said in the release that accompanied the society’s open letter: “We are not opposed to economic development in our EEZ provided we have in place environmental legislation that will properly manage the environmental effects and risks associated with those activities especially in our deep oceans.” Who could argue with that? Well it sounds like every single member of the National Government and perhaps even John Banks who I know has a strong commitment to environmental protection as well as to economic development and understands that you cannot just trade off one for the other and that some things are beyond repair once they are damaged and those are the things that we have a responsibility to protect.  
When I read through the letter that I just referred to from the Environmental Defence Society the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand and the Ecologic Foundation it was with a lot of sadness because those organisations all made submissions on the bill. They did not come along and say: “We oppose everything.” as National has portrayed them. They did not come along and say: “We don’t care about unemployment because we are so anti-development.” as National has portrayed them. Those are not the submissions that they made to the select committee. They submitted to the select committee that not only they understood economic development in these areas but also they supported it but it had to be after the environmental protection regime was in place.  
I heard the Minister and in fact some members refer to the international obligations we have. The Minister was quite dismissive actually and basically said: “Well if a bunch of fringe tree-huggers want to come along and say we don’t comply with international obligations I as a lawyer”—this was the Minister speaking sorry; I certainly do not want to imply that I am a lawyer heaven forbid—“don’t agree with them.” [ 
Interruption 
] Apologies to one of your professions I say to the Hon Chester Borrows. But it was not any fringe or extreme groups at all that said that under this legislation we will fail to comply with our international obligations; it was the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment amongst many others who quoted the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. She said that this is what it says: “States have the sovereign right to exploit their natural resources pursuant to their environmental policies and in accordance with their duty to protect and preserve the marine environment.” It is not a balance—the protection. The duty of protection of the marine environment is paramount. It must come first. It must be in the purpose clause of this legislation and it is not.  
Then we had—and I suppose the Hon Amy Adams will dismiss this fringe tree-hugging group as well—a group called the New Zealand Law Society. I notice my colleague Charles Chauvel inclining his head at the mention of its name. It came along and said in its submission that “The right to develop resources within the EEZ and on the Continental Shelf (conferred under the LOSC and customary international law) is subject to obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment”. I draw the House’s attention to the specific words “subject to obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment”.  
This is not a balancing act. This is not a situation where some organisation will come along and say: “We want to work we want to extract we want to put in place any economic activity in the EEZ or on the continental shelf and perhaps in return we could make a sizable donation. We could buy some land. We could expand a national park.” This is not a balancing act. This is not a trade-off. This is our moral and legal duty and obligation to preserve the environment. That is what we signed up to and that is where this bill fails. So the purpose clause of the bill is wrong. Had the Minister listened to the submitters and the urges of other parties in this regard we would have supported amending the purpose clause and consequential amendments throughout the bill and we would have then been very happy to support it.  
As I said at the beginning of my contribution the lack of protection of the environment in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf and the lack of security and confidence—the lack of a regulatory regime for those who wish to have economic development activities in this area—is a failing. It is a shortfall; we should have both. We should ensure that people who want to have economic development in this area know the rules. They should know that if they proceed along x y and z grounds they will be fine. They will be able to do that work without any litigation. It will not cost them a lot in court fees and arguments. They will know the regulatory regime. But most of all we have to have the environmental protections put in place.  
The purpose clause remains as it is and therefore Labour as we did right at the very beginning of this process said that with great—[ 
Interruption 
] We were the only party that said that from the outset. We said we wanted this legislation to be in place but it is flawed to the point of us being unable to do that. There is a vacuum in our legislative regime. We would like to have filled it with legislation that did understand our legal and moral obligations to protect the environment first. Unlike National we do not think of it as a balancing act or as a trading-off. We know that some things once damaged cannot be repaired and that is too high a price for us to pay.  
We had the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We had the Law Society. We had local authorities. We had iwi. We had environmental groups. We had the spectrum of people interested in this issue and overwhelmingly submitters expressed their great sorrow and concern that this bill just does not cut the mustard.