Little Andrew: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 21 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4608. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith and Andrew Williams both talked about the law being adequate and that we should not dwell on pedantries as we consider this piece of law. That is not good enough. Our job here as lawmakers is not to promote business or any other particular interests but to make law that is fit for the purpose and does the job and that is to ensure that the words that we approve and that this Committee approves not only achieve the objectives that the legislation says it needs to meet but also satisfy the international obligations that we have entered into as well. 
One of the important things is to ensure particularly when it comes to this part that the regulation-making provisions are consistent with the obligations that we have entered into. When you look at clauses 27 28 and 29 in the absence of any reference in clause 10 in a previous part to the fundamental international obligation of preserving and protecting marine life and the marine environment it is noticeable that that objective is missing in those regulation-making parts. 
 There is no overriding or overwhelming guidance in regulation-making powers for the obligation to preserve and protect marine life and the marine environment to apply. That is a glaring omission and it would be good to hear from the Minister in the chair the Hon Amy Adams about what principles and values are going to guide the regulation-making provisions in the absence of anything in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill that is going to require the Government to fulfil the obligations that we have entered into to preserve and protect. 
We do not go as far as those others who have expressed concern about the Gulf of Mexico and the  
Rena 
. One was a genuine blowout of an oil rig and the other was a beaching of a vessel which caused an oil spill. But the critical issue for the oil drilling whether it is on land or offshore no matter how deep the sea is not the depth of the sea; it is the geological structures that are being drilled into. That determines what happens. That determines the pressure at which the oil or gas comes out. That is the risk factor that needs to be assessed. That is still something that is entirely appropriate for this legislation to govern. There is nothing there that points to that specifically but it is not a question of being anxious about that particular risk except to know that it is being properly taken care of. 
The other point I wanted to talk about is clause 50 which is the mediation provision in the bill. What started out in the original bill as a reasonably good mediation provision that allowed the Environmental Protection Authority to send parties—an applicant for a marine consent and objectors to it—away and mediate agree on those things they can agree on and hone down those things they cannot and for those to be the subject of any ruling or further discussion was a good model. That is a good provision. But the Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 amends that and takes away the requirement not to have the mediation but the requirement for the mediation to then be reported back to the parties and to the Environmental Protection Authority itself so that it can carry on with this determinative role. That is a great pity. It is not just a great pity but it is actually not a very good process. 
If the parties are going to be sent off for mediation under clause 50 which is a very sensible thing to do—to get those things that the parties know they can agree on resolved and sorted and to get those things that they definitely cannot agree on and let those be the subject of the determination by the Environmental Protection Authority—that means that the mediation process must be concluded before the Environmental Protection Authority makes a determination and that the Environmental Protection Authority knows what the points of agreement and disagreement are. That makes complete sense. But the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 would mean that there is no requirement for the mediation process to be concluded nor for there to be any report back to the Environmental Protection Authority. That has the potential to waste enormous amounts of time and the great thing about the provision as it is at the moment is that it would allow what might otherwise be time-wasting activity to be honed down and refined and allow the genuine points of disagreement to be discovered and then be the subject of a proper hearing. 
Moana Mackey’s Supplementary Order Paper 106 puts back in a proper and effective process and requires that the Environmental Protection Authority not conduct a hearing of any objections to an application for consent until such time as a mediation has taken place and any agreements noted and recorded and there is a general report back from the mediation process. That is a good thing. I just prevail upon the Minister and ask the Minister to think carefully about that. If as the Government says it is it is so concerned about the business interests that are at the forefront of this debate then one thing that business will be most appreciative of is a process that allows it to sift out those things that should not waste the time of a judicially operated body such as the Environmental Protection Authority and allows it to conduct their hearings efficiently minimising costs to all parties and allowing good sensible decisions to be taken. 
With a mediation process that allows that—a mediation process that once entered into means that there cannot be a determination role played by the Environmental Protection Authority—it means that the parties actually have an incentive to as much as possible reach agreement on their points of disagreement. That must be a more constructive approach to take. Indeed it is the very approach that we would like to take with the entire bill but that has not proved possible so far. I simply prevail upon the Minister to think carefully about that clause 50 and leave it so that there is some integrity to the process the mediation process does not become a waste of time and the determinative process that the Environmental Protection Authority conducts can also be conducted efficiently and in the best interests of all parties that come before it.