Smith Nick: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4784. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This legislation the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill puts in place a proper regulatory regime for the 600 million hectares of ocean for which New Zealand has responsibility. It is good law it is long overdue and it fills a significant gap in New Zealand’s environmental laws. I want to commend the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams for the work that she has done on it particularly over the last 3 months in refining this bill with her Supplementary Order Paper 100. 
I do want to say how disappointed I am that the Labour Opposition members have chosen to oppose this bill. It is a party that is opposing for opposition’s sake and I want to expose some of their arguments. The member who has just spoken Moana Mackey made a great deal out of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I have a very simple question for that party and members who are opposing this bill. How do we meet our obligations under that convention with no environmental law at all in the exclusive economic zone? 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: They did it for 9 years. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: For 9 years Labour did not have any regime of independent environmental assessments at all. It did 16 deep wells without it. Did a single Labour member say: “Hey! Whoa! Stop! We’re not meeting our international obligations under the law of the sea.”? There was not so much as a peep from the Labour Party and for that matter from the Greens. 
Then we come to the issue of why we are not making it more consistent with the Resource Management Act. Let me make this point very simply because I do not believe Labour seriously believes this was simply an exercise in extending the Resource Management Act’s jurisdiction out to the exclusive economic zone. The Resource Management Act sets up a very complex system of national policy statements regional policy statements and district plans. All of these documents can take in total up to 9 years to complete the regulatory process for managing the environment. We are expecting at most six consents per year under this regime as compared with 40000 a year under the Resource Management Act. Does Labour seriously argue that we should have the complete fabric of the Resource Management Act’s national regional and district planning documents out in the exclusive economic zone? I do not seriously believe it does. I believe it is simply clinging at straws to try to find some excuse to oppose this important environmental statute. 
The member who has just spoken has claimed that National has not taken any account of the worst environmental tragedy to occur in the last couple of decades in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact this Government immediately commissioned an independent review of both our Maritime Transport Act and our Resource Management Act and our proposed exclusive economic zone legislation to ensure that we did learn the lessons from the Gulf of Mexico and those recommendations are contained in this very bill that Parliament now debates. 
The final point that was made by Moana Mackey was that we should have appeals to the Environment Court on any decisions that are made by the Environmental Protection Authority in respect of consents or declines that might be made under this exclusive economic zone legislation. Well I put this to the House: that is really a cop-out for saying that Labour does not want to see any resource used in the exclusive economic zone. I give a simple example: the previous Government legislated very clearly that the issue of climate change should not be taken into account in resource consents. That is right now being appealed by Greenpeace off to the Environment Court. Anybody who read the  
Hansard 
 would know that was deliberately the intent of the previous Labour Government. If we are to allow appeals on points of substance before the Environment Court on the consents under this legislation it will mean that it will take up to 2 years to get a consent—at least an extra 18 months on process. Let us be honest. That will drive away any investment at all in the exclusive economic zone and I do say that this country has a larger area of continental shelf than any per capita. We on this side of the House say that there are opportunities for us to be able to responsibly use those resources. If Labour is serious about going down that path it should be honest and upfront and say that it in effect refuses to have any use of the economic resources in that space. I would draw your attention to each of the big pieces of environmental law that have been passed over the last couple of decades whether it is the ozone protection law whether it is the Resource Management Act whether it is the hazardous substances Act or this which is of similar moment. Every one of those bills was passed with both National and Labour support. 
It really is a cop-out for the Labour Party to be opposing this bill dancing on the head of a pin over a few minor issues. Let us just follow what Labour has been saying in the course of this debate. In the first reading members said that they would prefer that the bill made reference to the principle of sustainable management which is in the Resource Management Act. 
Hon Amy Adams 
: Done. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: And that is done. They said at the time that they would prefer that we had higher fines. 
Hon Amy Adams 
: That’s right. Done. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The fines have been increased and put up to $10 million. That is done. The only argument they have left is truly pathetic. They are saying that this bill requires decision makers to show caution when there is a lack of information and they are saying they are opposing this bill because they would prefer that it used the precautionary principle. Well can I put the record straight: in both the Committee stage and the contribution we had from Moana Mackey she said the language that is used in this bill has not ever been used before. Hello hello. Have a look at the Fisheries Act—passed and supported by the Labour Party. It used exactly the same language as the exclusive economic zone legislation in respect of caution and my simple question to members opposite is why that language would be acceptable in the fisheries environment of which actually this bill includes a huge amount but not appropriate in this bill. Again I think it reinforces that Labour is just absolutely desperate to oppose or find any excuse and I think that speaks volumes about its broader problems in that it knows what it is against but not what it is for. 
I want to conclude by just marking how significant this legislation is for New Zealand. We have the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf of any country on this planet. I would say that if our country New Zealand cannot responsibly manage the ocean environment who can? I say that it is absolutely consistent with New Zealand’s “clean green” brand to show that we are able to responsibly manage that area. I think we need to be upfront about the fact that with the increased pressure for resources there is a higher level of interest in the minerals and other resources that exist within this huge ocean space. Equally so with new technologies it is becoming more accessible and we are more able to use those resources and the position this Government has taken that we should pick up those economic opportunities but it should be done in an environmentally responsible way with independent environmental assessments is the right way forward. 
This bill puts a huge responsibility on the Environmental Protection Authority which this Government created in 2009. We started with responsibilities for nationally significant projects and with responsibility for hazardous organisms and for new organisms with the emissions trading legislation falling under its jurisdiction from December last year and now with this new responsibility in the area of the exclusive economic zone in my view it completes the creation of that important new authority. The passage of this bill will raise new challenges for Government around marine reserves around marine mammals and around other things that we need to do in the ocean space to ensure that New Zealand is going best practice. But the passage of this bill is the most important step that New Zealand has taken in more than a decade to put our environmental laws into a state of which we can say that we are responsibly managing this country’s huge natural resources.