Kaye Nikki: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kaye Nikki: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3682. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be speaking on this legislation the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I want to start by acknowledging all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee but particularly the chair Nicky Wagner who I think has done an outstanding job often negotiating between members of the Opposition and Government members. I just want to acknowledge her here this evening.  
Overall I want to start off by saying that I think one of the issues that the select committee had to grapple with was a difference in philosophy between certain members. I would challenge some of the speakers whom we have seen regarding this bill to come up with a tangible risk-based system rather than what I think we have heard throughout the select committee process as well as in this House which is rhetoric.  
Members on this side of the House do believe that there is an ability through this legislation to not just improve the status quo. We have heard that there have been 46 wells drilled in this area. We believe we are improving the situation. We are actually putting a decent management regime in. But secondly we are providing an appropriate balance that enables New Zealand to improve our economic development and also have an adequate protection and risk-management regime in place. We are confident that we are able to provide that balance through this legislation. 
I want to talk through some specifics around that. I want to make the point at the outset that we always hear the rhetoric from the Opposition but when you look at the practical things and some of the things that it proposes it is really just opposing economic development. We believe that as I said before not only are we going to improve the situation because we have had no regulation in this area with already 46 wells being drilled but we also think that we can get the appropriate balance from an economic development perspective.  
I want to cover a few things off. The first thing is that what is unique about New Zealand is the fact that the area of ocean is 20 times New Zealand’s land area. So part of what is interesting about this legislation coming to the House is that Parliament for many decades has focused a lot on what is land-based activity but as someone in the environmental movement said to me when I was first elected there is still a need in the oceans area to have better environmental policies. And what this bill is a reflection of is the Parliament saying that for an area of ocean that is 20 times New Zealand’s land area we have to do more and we have to have a better risk-management regime in place.  
So when we look at what this bill actually covers I think we have to cover several areas. The first is that we have to look at what the activities are. As I said before we have heard a number of scaremongering things from some members within the House but some of the advice that we have had is twofold. One is that if we look at some of the activities that are going to happen not all of it is about mineral exploration. We are also talking about marine farming we are talking about energy generation we are talking about carbon capture and storage and we are talking about seismic surveying and cable laying so it is not all about mineral exploration.  
The second thing that I would say in terms of activities that are covered is that when we went through the select committee process and looked at some of the changes that potentially needed to be made we did put a number of protections in. I just want to cover some of them. Clause 19 sets out a very general duty to avoid remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects. The second thing that I would say is that from the advice we have we do believe that the levels of activity in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf are pretty low and this is going to bring me on to the reason why we did not choose to go down the Resource Management Act line in terms of the legislation. The levels of activity are pretty low and indications we believe suggest that we will not see a large number of operations in the next 10 years.  
A big debate that came to the select committee was about why we do not just extend the Resource Management Act. What we are confident of is that this is different that this is the marine environment and that we have provided a management regime that enables regional councils to not only still have involvement but I understand have involvement under the Resource Management Act for regional coastal plans and consenting activities in the territorial sea. But when it comes to some activities—a small number—this bill will apply. That is a good thing for New Zealand because what it means is more jobs through greater economic development. What it means too is reducing risk around some of these activities because we know the framework is not in place now.  
But finally what it also I think says to New Zealand is that we are going to provide greater clarity in terms of investors and existing interests that are there and we will also ensure that decisions are made in a very timely manner. That has been a hallmark of National’s previous Resource Management Act reforms. It is not necessarily about changing what has been in the past under the previous Resource Management Act changes—the test from an environmental perspective—it was about ensuring that decisions were made in a timely manner and were cost-effective to ensure that we do have greater economic development.  
So what members on this side of the House are saying is that we have provided a cost-effective approach that is about reducing risk but also ensuring that in that area where there is very little management at the moment we have an improved situation. I think that is a very rational approach and I think that we need to be careful of some of the scaremongering that happens because there are many other activities like marine farming and energy generation that this will apply to. And I think that is a very rational balanced environmental policy.  
I am very pleased to support this bill to the House. I want to reiterate the hard work of all the members on the select committee on both sides of the House in particular the chair Nicky Wagner.