Sage Eugenie: Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7093. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]EUGENIE SAGE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. As a Christchurch-based MP I am pleased to take a short call on the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. Christchurch has very strong associations with Antarctica. It has been the gateway to Antarctic exploration from the very early days it is the headquarters for Antarctic New Zealand and there are a number of fascinating exhibits and artefacts from Antarctic exploration at the Canterbury Museum. Of course vessels bound for Antarctica will often replenish their supplies in the port of Lyttelton and the aircraft leave fromHarewood.As others have noted the Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959 with its focus on the use of Antarctica for peaceful purposes is a model for international cooperation. The continent is the world’s largest wilderness area and there is certainly an internationalexpectation that the highest standards of environmental performance should apply to all who operate there. That is why in 1991 in Madrid the treaty partners agreed to append the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty to establish a protection regime for the continent.This agreement in 1991 included a commitment to negotiate and agree on procedures and rules for liability for any environmental damage. That was eventually negotiated and agreed in Stockholm in 2005. So this bill inserts new Part 5A into the principal Act. New Part 5A sets out the legal liability for damage to the Antarctic environment and it implements New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. It deals specifically with liability arising from environmental emergencies. Because it applies just to emergencies rather than establishing a comprehensive regime for environmental damage it was not as broad as environmental groups were urging the partners to adopt. But it will be a significant improvement on the current rules for managing Antarctica.New Zealand chaired the negotiations in Stockholm which resulted in the liability annex. So when the bill was introduced in 2009 New Zealand was expected to be one of the first countries to formally approve the annex by adopting it into domestic law. So we share with Labour the concerns about the delay but we still support the bill and will be pleased when it is passed.The effects of the bill as others have noted will be that New Zealand operators such as tourism operators who discover or who cause an environmental emergency such as an oil spill must immediately notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and then respond promptly and effectively. The bill sets out a regime for offences and a mechanism to recover costs if the operator fails to act. And as the Minister noted it does cap liability for various incidents.There were only four submissions on the bill. The Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand sought that it be extended to cover all vessels leaving New Zealand including fishing vessels. That would have been logical given the number of marine incidents we have seen in recent years that have raised the need for a comprehensive liability regime. That includes of course theNisshin Maru which was a whale processing ship in the Ross Sea where an explosion caused loss of life and power in 2007. But the officials’ view and the view of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was that there was no agreement between the treaty partners on the issue of having a comprehensive liability regime including fishing vessels during the annex negotiations so it could not proceed.That highlights a major problem with the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations which are occurring this week in New Zealand. As with those negotiations if there are any changes to domestic law there is the potential that if those changes have not been agreed by the States parties negotiating in Auckland then there will not be an ability to amend domestic law to provide for that. In this bill there is a lot of support for it and it is being done with a lot of transparency. But agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and their potential to override domestic law are a major problem. Thank you.Bill read a second time.