Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4653. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill partly to respond to that speech we have just heard from Nikki Kaye and partly to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson a question. I think in fairness to the previous speaker everybody in this House throughout the debate has acknowledged the importance of filling the regulatory gap that there is. There has been some disagreement among parties about how we do that about the extent to which we need to have consistency with our international obligations and about the extent to which we need to have consistency with our domestic law such as the Resource Management Act. There has been a shift from the Government in that regard which we welcome on this side of the Chamber. 
If we are going to use Part 3 as the example of what Nikki Kaye has just said—she mentioned the importance of the community and the importance of people having confidence in the system—that is the very reason why we have got an amendment in place around the question of appeals and whether or not appeals can go to the Environment Court because that is exactly the point of giving people the opportunity to have a say. Remember under this law appeals can be only on points of law. They cannot be on facts and they cannot be on new information. If the member is serious about wanting to create a law that gives the community a say and that ensures there is community confidence I do not see how opposing the Supplementary Order Paper that we have tabled to bring the Environment Court back in Supplementary Order Paper 95 would do that. 
I think it would be good for the Government to stop and think and to listen to for instance the contribution from Eugenie Sage just now on what role the Environment Court can actually play in helping develop law in this area because it is quite clear to anyone who has been following this debate that there will be significant dispute around some of the things that have been raised in this bill—for instance the meaning of the phrase “favour caution” or whatever you want to look at. There will be issues here. The Environment Court has actually played a very constructive role in establishing the body of law in practice with the Resource Management Act— 
Nikki Kaye 
: There are appeals around to the Environment Court around abatement notices. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is the point. But specifically in clause 103 on the question of appeals that is why we have made that change. I mean this is a genuine thing. I am not saying that the Government does not care about this; I am just saying that there is a better alternative which we know about as a result of the Resource Management Act that would facilitate the thing that the member just told us she was concerned about which is the involvement of the community and the ability to build up that body of law that will give people confidence. 
I appeal to the Government to have a look at the Supplementary Order Paper that exists on this and to consider whether or not it could support both broadening the scope of appeals to be able to be on matters of fact as well as on matters of law and bringing the Environment Court back into that phase because I do believe that that will make for better law in the long run in this area. 
The other matter I wanted to just quickly raise was around the question of penalties contained in clause 125. As I think I said in my earlier contribution on this matter we welcome the fact that the Government has increased the penalty for someone committing an offence under this bill to the large figure of $10 million. That is great but there is now an inconsistency created in the law because the following provisions of clause 125 cover what happens in the event of a continuing offence when somebody continues to break the law. That is defined quite clearly under clause 125(6) where it says: “The continued existence of anything or the intermittent repetition of any actions contrary to any provision of this Act is a continuing offence.”—so there is a very clear definition of what a continuing offence is—the Government has rightly said that this is such a significant area that it has to set a proper deterrent in place. It has to set something that is commensurate with the scale of what will be going on in the exclusive economic zone. It is $10 million for an offence—that is great. 
But then we come down to clause 125(2) (3) and (4) and we have fines of $10000 a day for a continuing offence. It is now completely out of whack. It is $10 million when you break the law and then we drop all the way down to $10000 a day. If it is a company—and these are large companies that are involved in this—that is hardly a consistent or commensurate penalty for a continuing offence. So I welcome the fact that the Government has decided to amend clause 125(1). It has done exactly the right thing which as my colleagues in the Local Government and Environment Committee have noted was something that Opposition parties said often much to the concern of the Government members who did not seem at that point to agree with us. They do now. So why then not back Supplementary Order Paper 103 in Moana Mackey’s name or indeed the Supplementary Order Paper in Gareth Hughes’ name Supplementary Order Paper 102 which actually make those penalties for a continuing offence more appropriate? They are out of whack at the moment and I would like the Minister in the chair or a Government member to be able to rise now and tell us why the Government will not make changes to the continuing offence penalties given that it has made those changes under clause 125(1). It just does not make logical sense. The Committee is in agreement here that we need to have penalties that fit the crime—as it were—and have a deterrent effect. That is happening in one part of clause 125 but then it completely fails in the rest. 
In clause 125(2) at the moment the first stage of what happens with a continuing offence is a fine not exceeding $10000 for every day. We are proposing in Supplementary Order Paper 103 that that becomes $100000 every day from thereon. After that when it is a summary conviction and it carries on the penalty is $1000 per day under clause 125(3). We would like to see that go up to $100000 and if the offence is a continuing one to a further fine not exceeding $10000. 
Finally under clause 125(4) where it says: “A person who commits an offence … is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1500.” we would like to see that go to $15000. This is simply consistent with where the Government has now reached on clause 125(1) and if the Government is not going to support that Supplementary Order Paper this Committee deserves to know why because it is completely inconsistent and illogical. We end up with a penalty regime that does not fit the magnitude of what may be taking place inside the exclusive economic zone. That is our big concern with Part 3 of this bill. 
We do want to support the Government in raising these penalties. Everybody in this Chamber wants to support the Government but I just urge some consistency in this particular part.