Hughes Gareth: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4632. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. In the series of debates on this legislation there has been a lot of talk about gas oil companies and economic development but what I have not heard about is the environment—the actual place that we are talking about which is the exclusive economic zone. It has been entirely absent.We are incredibly lucky in New Zealand. People do not often think about New Zealand as a super power. Obviously we are a pretty small low-population country but when it comes to the marine environment we are a super power. We have got the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world—an incredible environment. We have got maybe 1000 undersea mountains and incredible endemisms—species that live here and that do not live anywhere else on the planet. We have got huge resources huge fish stocks some incredible flora and fauna down there and some things that scientists advise us we know so little about. In fact less than 0.41 percent of this is actually protected in marine reserves. So sure although we are talking about a bill that is granting transitional drilling powers to one particular oil company let us not forget what we are talking about which is this large rich diverse thriving marine environment which we still know so little about. More people have been to the surface of the moon than have been to the bottom of the deep ocean. It is the world’s second-deepest submarine trench and a place that most likely none of us will get to in our lives but one that is deserving of our protection.When you listen to the previous speaker Matt Doocey you would think he was Al Gore or St Francis of Assisi or that he had just driven here in his electric hybrid from some adventures on the Rainbow Warrior as if he were some sort of environmental champion. Let us not forget though that what the Government did was basically to build on the work of the previous Government in finally getting around to a Resource Management Act for the sea. This was something that the Green Party had been calling for since we were first elected to Parliament under our own steam in 1999. What we got was far short of what the country actually needed or what was happening in other world-leading countries around the world which was a comprehensive oceans policy. What we got was resource management for the sea tilted in favour of extractive industries.It has been interesting to follow this process in this House and in the courts over many years and here we are with another iteration. We saw the original legislation passed I believe in 2012. It had to be amended to fix up some problems. I followed the High Court case when Anadarko was taken to court. I submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority on both the Trans-Tasman Resources and Chatham Rock Phosphate proposal applications which were thrown out. And here we are now seeing yet another amendment to this legislation. What we are not talking about is improving the legislation. We are not talking about fixing it—in terms of some of those glaring gaps—or about how we move forward to take advantage of and protect the fourth-largest marine environment in the world. What this legislation does is patch up a loophole—a loophole that could have been identified by officials or Government Ministers originally.But the blame should lie fairly at Shell Todd Oil Service’s door which is a company involved in the process surrounding the passing of the original legislation and which has operated in New Zealand for decades which is worth tens of hundreds of millions of dollars which knew its permit was expiring—it had ultimately decades of notice—and which did not get its application in on time. As someone who hears often about personal responsibility I ask why we are not applying it in this case. We urge personal responsibility for beneficiaries but when it comes to big corporates why did we not ask them why they did not get their paperwork and application in on time? Why was the executive not asking the company why it was lobbying it to pass a law of Parliament—a statute—before it even got its application in? It does look a bit cart before the horse when you have a company that has not made an application and runs instead to Cabinet which decided in fact on 8 December to pass this legislation before the company had even got its application in when ultimately it had had years and decades of notice. That is why the Green Party opposed the first reading of this legislation. It really did look like one law for oil—a law for a single corporate.Many members are concerned about crony capitalism or support only for a few corporates with relations with whoever is in Government and this is something that we were concerned about. Ultimately there are a whole host of legislative solutions that this House should be taking to grow our economy to build a more prosperous economy to grow jobs and to protect our environment. It is not this choice between one or the other. In fact protecting our environment is our key to our economic prosperity. But we are not debating those things; we are debating passing a law to help a company that did not get its application in on time despite all the notice.However we were pleased to note the constructive positive atmosphere in the Local Government and Environment Committee. We would like to acknowledge once again the chair Mr Simpson the members and the five submitters. We have made improvements and that is why subsequently we are changing our vote to support this law. Ultimately what this law does is a single thing: allowing transitional provisions in the case of an appeal by a marine consent applicant whose permit expires. We will not see this in effect for decades given the other applicants with marine permits will not be applying for marine consents for some decades. So we are talking about transitional provisions something analogous with what we see already in the Resource Management Act and something non-controversial but we have managed to clarify it by adding new section 162(5) which allows the 9-month or 140 statutory day - consistency with the existing primary legislation in order to incentivise companies to actually get their applications in on time. If this amendment had not been made there would have been an incentive for a marine applicant or the oil company in this example to put its application in the day before its permit expires because it knows that it is protected by statute and that for the course of the process through the Environmental Protection Authority and any future appeals it would be protected and its activity could continue.Secondly in the same section we sought clarification around what an application meant. The way it was drafted it was dubious and could have been challenged in court. By clarifying that it must be a complete application which gives the Environmental Protection Authority the powers to request additional information such as an oil spill impact assessment in the case of an oil industry company applicant there is certainty. It must be a complete application. It is important because I am aware of a few applications despite the small number to the Environmental Protection Authority where considerable information has been presented. So we have signalled our concerns. We identified that we would be lodging a protest vote in the first reading. We are happy and would like to acknowledge the work of the members on the committee to improve the bill. That is why we will be changing our vote.Let us get around to having the real conversation which is about how we look after the fourth-largest part of marine space in the world which is owned by a company. We had concerns with the original exclusive economic zone legislation—that it was too focused on extractive industries. At the time I called it an “easy drilling bill” because of how much weaker it was than the Resource Management Act and because of how the precautionary principle was not carried over despite the international importance of this principle—it was only a precautionary principle. So we have got concerns that we are not protecting our taonga our heritage our beautiful natural environment.So what is next? What we need to have a conversation about is how we see greater marine protection across the water out from 12 nautical miles in the exclusive economic zone. It is a scandal that in 2015 we still cannot create marine reserves in the exclusive economic zone and that is why we have in total less than half of 1 percent of our waters protected in marine reserves. What we need to be doing is taking a smart approach. What we should be undertaking is a spatial-planning approach to our marine environment and having those conversations about where the special protected areas are where the areas are that we need to find out more information where the go areas are for extractive industries where the no-go areas are. What we have seen under the current legislation is two companies Trans-Tasman Resources and Chatham Rock Phosphate investing tens of millions of dollars and having their applications thrown out from the Environmental Protection Authority.I personally submitted against them because of the huge environmental consequences they had. But it is unfair I believe for these applicants when they lack certainty. That is why I am calling for a seabed moratorium. We should actually undertake some of the fundamental scientific questions and undertake the spatial planning so that we actually know what is down there in the go and no-go areas when these companies apply. Who knows whether they will have a case in the future or in a different location but when they are literally throwing tens of millions of dollars away because of a flawed process I think it is in everyone’s interest to work together to undertake this policy.Just lastly instead of looking at individual species under the quota management system or individual areas in isolation we should in fact be taking an ecosystem approach. We are calling for a spatial-planning ecosystem approach and greater protection. These are what are going to protect our shared—