Kaye Nikki: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kaye Nikki: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4652. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 3 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I just want to start by making a couple of comments. The first is to acknowledge why we are here. We know that there is a regulatory gap. We know that our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf offer significant opportunities. The question is after a significant period when Governments did not move to fulfil this regulatory gap whether here today parties in Parliament will support legislation to be able to do that. I am very pleased that we have seen the Maori Party and the New Zealand First Party shift to support this legislation and I think one of the key reasons for that was there has been a Supplementary Order Paper. 
One of the key aspects of our Supplementary Order Paper 100 addresses this issue this Part 3 of the bill. If we look at Supplementary Order Paper 100 which has been put to the Committee it has been supported by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. In fact the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has been very clear that she now supports this bill. One of the key aspects of Supplementary Order Paper 100 is to significantly increase the penalties. When you look through all of Part 3 everything that this part is about is saying that we want to decrease risk to our environment and ensure that there are adequate enforcement powers and adequate penalties to be able to do that. This Supplementary Order Paper massively strengthens that by taking it from $600000 for the maximum penalty to $10 million. 
Additionally if you look through some of these clauses we have had a great contribution from the community and we have really strengthened the law as a result of that. I want to make a special mention of one of the submitters that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and I think had a real impact on the committee. That was the Taranaki Regional Council. It has been undertaking activity in terms of marine consents in coastal waters for years. It came to our select committee with a very practical suggestion around the fact that there needed to be greater enforcement in terms of abatement notices and our select committee acted. When you look at the provisions in the bill that deal with this—clause 122A right through to clause 122D—it really shows that we are serious about enforcement. But we are also serious about when the system might see that something is going wrong—about there being an ability for people to ask questions or to ask for activity to be looked at or stopped. That really shows right throughout this part whether it is the penalties the abatement notices or even if we turn to some sections around enforcement and the powers of enforcement officers—clauses 129 130 and 131. They show a huge amount of power in terms of being able to search vessels and get information. 
So what I think this part is actually about is giving a lot of confidence in terms of our environmental management regime to say: “Yes we do believe in exploring greater economic opportunities but we want to ensure that there are some powers in there to prevent and mitigate risk.” That is a very sensible piece of legislation for this House to be passing. I want to acknowledge those parties that have realised that the changes through Supplementary Order Paper 100 are significant and that have seen that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment supports them. The Maori Party and the New Zealand First Party have taken practical measures to show their support for addressing this regulatory gap and ultimately making our environmental regime stronger. Thank you.