Sabin Mike: Marine Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Marine Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13631. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am not sure that that member Maryan Street is well placed to be talking about the death of the Government given the bloodshed that has been occurring in the Labour caucus in recent times but there we go. That is certainly a party that is in the practice of throwing many stones within the glasshouse.I want to come to Supplementary Order Paper 347 and speak to that just briefly. I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when this Marine Legislation Bill was passing through the select committee but I have been listening intently to some of the comments made in the debate on Part 1 which I would also like to contribute to just very briefly.It is fair to say that there is little contention about Part 1 or the need for this legislation. The Labour Party did advance with “Why is it taking so long? Why is it taking so long?”. There was a lot of hand-wringing and clenching of hands and fingers over that. The question I would have—Hon Maryan Street: We’re on Part 2 now Mike.MIKE SABIN: I know that we are on Part 2 but this is my first contribution Maryan Street so I would like to actually offer something a little more fulsome. It has been raised in Part 2 anyway as to why we have not done anything. The member Ruth Dyson raised that exact point. Although not uncommon with Labour Party members the ironic thing here is that they sat around for 3 years when they could have done something about this but they did not. They have been in the practice of pushing the hard things to one side and just dealing with the populist issues to help them get re-elected. Then when they go into Opposition—I give them credit; Labour is actually an effective Opposition party when its members are not cannibalising one another—they turn round and say: “Why isn’t that Government doing what we didn’t?”. The difference between this party and the Labour Party is that we get on and actually do what needs to be done. So the posturing over why this has taken so long needs to be put to bed right there because Labour had its chance and it did not take it. Then it comes into the Chamber and spends the last 3 years filibustering—Iain Lees-Galloway: I beg your pardon?MIKE SABIN: The member heard me.Iain Lees-Galloway: We’ve spent 3 years filibustering this bill have we?MIKE SABIN: I could try to spell it out but I would probably struggle with that one I think. I am not sure whether that word starts with an “f” or a “ph”. I am not sure but never mind. I could come to the member’s comments about alcohol limits but of course we are on Part 2. I will pick that up on another occasion—what I would think about what pilots are doing not just what people are doing in ships because they also have some concerns around alcohol.Supplementary Order Paper 347 deals with introducing a new definition of a non-notified discretionary activity. The Environmental Protection Authority will have a regulatory opportunity to keep the sort of oversight that is required essentially where exploration is occurring or where a narrower field of activities are going on. There is a distinctly different implication to exploratory activities or short-term or controlled activities from full-blown production. I think that is where members may be getting a little confused—when we look to manage and mitigate risk and get the balance right in terms of providing a pragmatic and effective legislative framework in which we can encourage activities with a balance towards ensuring environmental needs are taken care of. This is what this Supplementary Order Paper is actually dealing with. The members on the other side would have us think that this is Armageddon that this is a disgrace to democracy and what have you. Well what I would suggest is that it is not a case that every single initiative every single policy of Government is subject to the referendum sort of approach that we see from the Labour and Green members. It just so happens that they cherry-pick particular issues that they believe that is important for.It is quite clear that when we look at the restrictions that are put on and what this Supplementary Order Paper actually relates to they are quite controlled and risk-managed practices. Yes this Government makes no apology whatsoever for the fact that we want to look and explore the opportunities that this country has in terms of its mineral resources. We would be doing New Zealanders a great disservice were we not to do that. It is a matter of doing it in a fashion that ultimately gets the balance between the environmental needs and the consequences of things going wrong and having effective vehicles for us to make something of the opportunities that this country has to offer in terms of mineral exploration. So I have no problem with Supplementary Order Paper 347 and I would challenge the Opposition to actually deal with that issue.