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:4667. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Nick Smith in terms of claiming that we are dancing on the head of a pin is misrepresenting the Opposition once again. He has obviously not read the substantive Supplementary Order Papers. There are eight from the Opposition seeking to make quite substantive changes to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. That is because yes it is going through because of the Government’s majority but it has a number of defects which the Green Party has highlighted from day one. They are in the purpose clause the gutting of— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Never satisfied the Green Party. 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: The member says we are never satisfied. No Mr Smith we are not satisfied because we want good robust legislation that will endure that actually talks about sustainable management of the oceans. Yes this legislation does that but it is a whole mix of factors so there is no clear direction to the decision makers about which should be given priority. 
There is no clear emphasis on protection and preservation of the marine environment which is part of our commitment under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. There are these planned activities. The transitional provisions are very broad and they potentially allow quite a lot to happen in the marine environment without the need to get a marine consent particularly with the commencement date potentially being not until 1 July 2014. The mining industry said to the Local Government and Environment Committee that it was very very happy with this bill. Once again this underlines that there is not enough commitment to environmental protection in the bill if the industry is happy with it. We have throughout the House’s consideration and in the select committee sought constructively to improve the bill. We still have not had clarification around the scope and impact of the transitional provisions and the planned activities and what can be allowed there. There is the potential for some quite serious oil exploration to occur without the need for a marine consent. 
Yes this bill will go through. It certainly is an improvement because we have not got legislation there at the moment but the fact that there is not the ability to appeal to the Environment Court will make it very difficult for the community to engage. The time limits on hearings will again mean that for very complex applications the Environmental Protection Authority will be under substantial pressure to deal with those quickly. Given that applicants will have been able to develop those over several years the bill is actually restricting the ability of the community to get involved in the way that occurs under the Resource Management Act at the moment. So yes it is an improvement on the status quo but there are a number of constructive changes that the Opposition put forward in its Supplementary Order Papers and it is disappointing that those have not been more seriously considered by the Government.