Sage Eugenie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sage Eugenie: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4650. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to correct some of the statements that Jacqui Dean made. I think she was more than mischievous in not accurately characterising the Green Party’s position on this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. We supported the bill at its introduction because there is a huge gap in the environmental management of our oceans—the fact that we do not have legislation that provides for a consenting regime. But we have opposed it and continue to oppose it because of the major shortcomings of the bill: the fact that there is no hierarchy for matters of national importance the fact that Treaty obligations are not well dealt with and the failure to adequately provide for the protection and preservation of the marine environment in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 
In relation to this part Part 3 of the bill is about what can happen after the Environmental Protection Authority makes a decision. It relates to objections to the Environmental Protection Authority’s decisions appeals to the High Court and beyond on points of law and enforcement. It is this fact that there are no appeals to the Environment Court and that submitters and applicants can appeal only to the High Court against a whole or part of an Environmental Protection Authority decision that is a major issue because that is constraining access to justice—not having the full scope of appeal rights to the Environment Court. This was a deliberate policy decision by Cabinet and we understand that it was made because Cabinet believed that the Environmental Protection Authority was already making decisions at the national level and was seen as being an expert body. 
But as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society noted in its submission clause 97 of the bill provides for applications that deal with nationally significant cross-boundary issues—that is across the 12-nautical-mile limit—to be dealt with by a board of inquiry not by the Environmental Protection Authority. So surely this is already signalling that the Environmental Protection Authority does not have the same standing and expertise as other decision makers—the fact that you get this delegated to a board of inquiry. The Green Party supports Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Charles Chauvel because it would provide for appeals to the Environment Court instead of restricting it to the High Court. 
The experience with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act is instructive because that legislation has disallowed appeals to the Environment Court and restricted them to points of law appeals to the High Court. Environment Canterbury has just notified decisions on the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement. There has been a slew of appeals from various parties technically on points of law but a lot of those appeals actually raise substantive issues of public policy around environmental management and in that case the appropriateness of policies in the regional policy statement about whether they are adequate to control the allocation of water. Those sorts of public policy and public interest issues are much better dealt with by the Environment Court given its specialist expertise given the substantial technical skills of the commissioners who sit alongside the judiciary and given the court’s experience with mediation such that a lot of cases are resolved before going to a formal court hearing. 
I think the downplaying and setting aside of the role of the Environment Court in this bill is very short-sighted because it means that the focus is going to be very legalistic in the High Court where you do not have that specialist expertise that the Environment Court has. I think we need to reflect on the fact that the Environment Court succeeded the Planning Tribunal. It has dealt with and been fundamental in developing the case law around particular bits of the Resource Management Act—the meaning of particular clauses and the legislation there. Similarly this bill and the substantive issues about how our oceans should be managed would benefit from the Environment Court’s expertise and from allowing appeals to be taken there. 
The Environment Court is also much more accessible than the High Court to lay people so by restricting it to the High Court you are again constraining the ability of communities to engage. 
The Environment Court is not bound by strict rules of evidence. It has powers of inquiry which when you are dealing with public policy issues like resource management and management of the oceans are very useful. Given the substantive public interest issues that will come up in appeals in our view Charles Chauvel’sSupplementary Order Paper should proceed because it reinstates those appeals to the Environment Court. I think doing away with the Environment Court is incredibly short-sighted. I think it reflects this Government’s focus on pushing development through as quickly as possible without taking significant account of environmental impacts. 
The other matter I would like to comment on is clause 125 and the proposals in Supplementary Order Papers from Labour and from my colleague Gareth Hughes to increase those penalties. Like Moana Mackey said it would have been good to see that done in the Local Government and Environment Committee because Opposition members certainly raised this several times but we were defeated there. The problem with the bill as it is currently drafted is that the penalties are the same as the maximum fines in the Resource Management Act—$600000 for corporations and $30000 for natural persons plus there is a provision for continuing fines. But here we are dealing with major corporations with significant financial clout getting involved in activities that are very risky. There is an obvious need to substantially increase the penalties. 
The Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 is a very useful step in the right direction because it would increase the fines to $10 million for any offence involving a corporation. But that should be higher and Gareth Hughes’ Supplementary Order Paper 102 provides for a more realistic penalty of $12 million because we are dealing with oil and gas prospecting companies and the potential consequences of something like an oil well blowout are catastrophic. So it is very appropriate that the fine should be $12 million rather than $10 million. We recognise that even when you set fines at this level of course they cannot compensate for the ecological consequences and the economic consequences of such a catastrophe. We will be supporting the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 on Part 3 if Supplementary Order Paper 102 does not get the support of the Committee. Thank you.