Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) Link to this

I move, That the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. This bill is an integral part of the Government’s blue-green programme to strengthen New Zealand’s environmental and resource management systems. This significant bill puts in place a system of environmental protection for the ocean beyond the 12-mile territorial sea covering the 400 million hectares in the exclusive economic zone and the 170 million hectares in the extended continental shelf.

This bill recognises the opportunities and responsibilities that go with New Zealand being a significant maritime nation. The ocean area over which we have jurisdiction is 20 times our land mass and is the fourth-largest of any nation. The bill also recognises that our ocean resources are coming under increased development pressure from a growing global population, the depletion of resources on land, and advances in technology that are making the use of ocean resources more possible.

I acknowledge the support of the Māori Party, the ACT Party, United Future, and the Green Party for this important bill. Such a broad consensus shows that this is a bill whose time is due. National proposed this reform from Opposition as part of our blue-green agenda announced in 2006. We have revised these proposals with the support of officials. We sought further independent advice after the Gulf of Mexico disaster to ensure that we were putting in place the best system possible for environmental protection.

This legislation will manage the adverse environmental effects of activities in the exclusive economic zone, which are currently unregulated. That includes the construction of petroleum platforms, seabed mining, possible aquaculture developments, carbon capture and storage, marine farming, and energy generation proposals that may evolve. The legislation will do this by providing a regulatory framework similar to the Resource Management Act for classifying certain activities as permitted, discretionary, or prohibited. This classification will depend on the environmental effects of those activities. The consent function will rest with the Government’s new Environmental Protection Authority.

For discretionary activities, consents will be needed. All such applications will need to be publicly notified, and will require an environmental impact assessment and take account of both the receiving environment and the cumulative effects. We are also providing a mechanism for effectively dealing with consents that straddle over the exclusive economic zone and the territorial sea. This new legislation will not duplicate the existing regulatory processes for fishing governed by the Fisheries Act or for shipping under the Maritime Transport Act. It has also been carefully designed to ensure it is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations.

There will be a transitional period once the bill becomes law. The Government will require those already undertaking discretionary activities in the exclusive economic zone and the extended continental shelf to apply to the Environmental Protection Authority within 6 months of the legislation coming into force, and they may continue those activities until those consent applications are decided. Existing oil and gas installations and associated infrastructure will be exempt on the basis that they are already operational. Existing licences for mineral prospecting will also be exempt on the basis that those licences contain environmental controls.

There will of course be an intervening period as this bill travels through the legislative process and comes into effect, as is the Government’s intention, on 1 July 2012. That is why the Government is also putting in place interim measures to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime.

Environmental impact assessments will be required and undertaken for oil and gas drilling operations. Operations will be required to comply with the latest beefed-up drilling safety rules, which were developed in the United States following the inquiries into the Gulf of Mexico disaster. These measures complement the recent announcements made by the Minister of Labour on the establishment of a high hazards unit, with four new inspectors, specifically for the petroleum industry. The Minister of Transport is also reviewing the liability insurance requirements for the industry and is looking to raise that insurance level above the current $30 million.

Some have advocated that we should have just extended the Resource Management Act out beyond the 12-mile territorial sea. This would have been too cumbersome. It would have required an extensive planning regime that is out of proportion with the likely scale of activities out in the exclusive economic zone. Others have questioned whether the Environmental Protection Authority should be the consenting authority and have said that it should instead go to regional councils. The reality is that these are highly specialised skills and the Government’s view is that once one goes beyond that 12-mile limit, these are really national issues and it is more efficient for it to be done by the Environmental Protection Authority.

The Government views New Zealand’s “clean, green” brand as being important, but this does not mean that in our ocean environment we should ban everything, any more than we ban everything in our land environment. It does mean ensuring that we have world’s best practice environmental standards and systems, and that is what this bill introduces.

This bill is consistent with our broader Government agenda of ensuring we grow the economy but doing it in an environmentally responsible way. I acknowledge the support of groups like the Environmental Defence Society and the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association, which have welcomed this move as they know it will provide better environmental protection as well as certainty of process for those who look to develop the largely unrealised potential that lies in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf. It will help to manage the adverse effects on the environment while allowing for the sensible development and community engagement in decision making.

New Zealand has been aware of the need for this legislation for a long time, and this bill represents the culmination of years of work. If we do not act we risk harm to the marine environment, and, in my view, there is a reputational risk for our country in respect of not having world’s best practice in the exclusive economic zone. This bill is part of a wider body of blue-green reforms already instigated by this Government to ensure that we have world-class environmental management systems. The time for a robust environmental management regime of our vast oceans has come. I commend this bill to the House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

As we heard from the Minister for the Environment, the exclusive economic zone extends 12 nautical miles out from the coast to 200 nautical miles out, and the continental shelf, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, extends to an area of about 1.7 million square kilometres round the New Zealand coastline. It is about 20 times New Zealand’s land area, and it contains, as we know, some of the wildest seas and marine conditions in the world.

Over the last 3 years we have seen an absolute failure on the part of this Government to regulate New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I rise to support the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill at its first reading. It is very appropriate that in this week, Conservation Week, we debate this bill’s first reading. It should have been done under Labour. All New Zealanders are keen to protect and conserve our natural environment. We understand that our natural resources are precious and that they offer us opportunities, but also that they impose responsibilities. We Bluegreens in the National Party believe that the economy and the environment can, and must, go hand in hand.

It was interesting to hear Labour saying that the continental shelf designation happened only in 2008 and that nothing could have been done before then. That is absolute nonsense. Labour certainly could have introduced legislation on the exclusive economic zone and just added the information about the continental shelf later. More drilling was done under Labour in 2005, 2006, and 2007 than has been done in the last 3 years.

We have robust legislation in the form of the Resource Management Act to care for our environment on land, but that legislation covers only 12 miles out into the ocean. The exclusive economic zone—the area of sea, seabed, and subsoil—goes from that 12-mile limit to 200 nautical miles offshore, where New Zealand has jurisdiction. As we have said, it even extends to some places beyond those 200 nautical miles because of the continental shelf, but that would not have stopped legislation being passed while Labour was in power.

New Zealand has one of the biggest exclusive economic zones in the world. It is an area of ocean that is 20 times the size of our land mass, and up until now there has been no legislation to protect it. We are introducing this bill because it is our responsibility to manage this huge area well. This much-needed legislation will fill a gap, and will give effect to New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to manage and protect the natural resources of this area.

The new law will work in tandem with existing laws to manage the exclusive economic zone and the environmental effects of activities like petroleum exploration and mining. We do not want to see in New Zealand the sort of environmental disaster that was seen in the Gulf of Mexico. I make the point that one of the reasons that this bill is being introduced later in our term is that after that disaster we commissioned a review to make sure that we got it right and learnt from what had happened before.

This bill sets up a general framework for our regulatory system, and will make the Environmental Protection Authority responsible for consenting, monitoring, and enforcing activities within the exclusive economic zone. It will set up a consenting regime to regulate activities, and it will require public notification and consultation on regulations and consents. All consents will require an environmental impact assessment, and there will be a responsibility on consent holders to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse environmental effects. The enforcement of penalties will be aligned with the Resource Management Act.

This is good legislation. We have developed it responsibly. It has taken a little longer than we had hoped, because of additional research and because of that interest in what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. But we have worked on it steadily and responsibly. We have heard from iwi that it is too fast. We are now hearing from Labour that it is too slow. I think it is probably in the right time. New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone needs to be managed well, and this legislation will set the framework to do just that. It will give us world-best environmental practice. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Before I turn my attention to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill I would like it to be known that those of us who participated in the hunt owe a debt of gratitude to the man sitting in the Speaker’s seat. However, some of us are better shots than others—

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora koutou. The Minister for the Environment, in his opening remarks, quite rightly pointed to the fact that the Greens will support the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill being referred to a select committee. That is a decision we made after some considerable thought. It was quite a finely judged decision, I have to say. We are committed to supporting this bill being referred to a select committee because some good and positive steps are proposed in it. It is, however, a curate’s egg of a bill: it is excellent in parts but, equally, there are some very unsavoury elements that we would need to see excised, amended, or added to in order for our support to go beyond the select committee process.

We have long acknowledged that there is a considerable gap in our legislative and regulatory frameworks to the extent that, for example, there is no requirement currently for any environmental impact assessment of activities that seek to exploit the seabed in the exclusive economic zone. Under the current regime, of course, the Resource Management Act covers matters out to the territorial sea. Beyond that, other than legislation around shipping, navigation, and fishing there is a significant gap in our legislative framework, due to a whole host of historic and other reasons we will not undertake to encompass here. We see considerable value, for example, in the establishment of a legislative framework.

We are fortunate—and I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that we are fortunate—to have a very substantive independent paper prepared by the Environmental Defence Society and published earlier this year under the title Governing our Oceans. We wholeheartedly endorse a number of recommendations from that paper. Not the least of those is the call for a royal commission of inquiry to undertake a comprehensive review of all of the existing mechanisms of international best practice and the current legislative framework, including the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf. For reasons of history and convenience we treat those as separate and distinct, but in a sense—physically and, certainly, ecologically—we are talking about a continuum. There are no brightlines between those three zones. We think that any management framework and any legislative framework need to acknowledge that the separations are matters of convenience, not reality.

We entirely support the necessity of giving a level of environmental protection to the exclusive economic zone sooner rather than later, as the Environmental Defence Society has indicated. So we support in principle the establishment of some governance prior to that more comprehensive review and inquiry being undertaken. We do, though, have serious reservations about some of the content of this bill, some of the attitudes and assumptions that underpin it, and some of the absences—some of what is lacking—from the bill. We are particularly concerned to see the emergence once again of the word “balance”, which we have come to understand is a coded word, shall we say, for an unwillingness to engage with a notion of absolute environmental bottom lines. We must insist on some absolute environmental bottom lines if we are genuinely interested in environmental protection.

Anyone who has read the Government’s recently released energy strategy will know that in terms of this so-called balance the Government clearly expresses a preference. It would tilt the balance, if you like, in favour of economic development, which is designed to attract foreign investment. We are told it will potentially generate a $13 billion to $15 billion bonanza.

Clause 61(2)(a) of the bill says that the Environmental Protection Authority may “grant an application … if the activity’s contribution to New Zealand’s economic development outweighs the activity’s adverse effects on the environment;”. Anyone persuaded by that chimera—that illusion—of a $14 billion to $15 billion bonanza awaiting us in seabed resources might be persuaded to ignore the very real environmental and social dangers and costs. It is notoriously difficult to do any sensible assessment of the potential value of exploitation of a resource. It is equally difficult to put figures or some sort of value on environmental quality and environmental protection. These are some of the issues that I say this bill avoids rather than engages with.

A recent Cabinet paper pointed out that part of the reason for this bill is that the exploration industry is concerned about a lack of certainty and regulatory process that could affect their considerable long-term investment. A point was made that the reputational risk to companies that cannot demonstrate compliance with high environmental standards could compromise their willingness to invest, or, indeed, their willingness to participate. In accepting that there might be a legitimate concern, I suggest that those companies should be careful of what they wish for. Given that we are talking about what the industry refers to internationally as frontier areas, and given the extraordinarily high risk and the various dubious assessments of environmental or economic return, any organisation that was genuinely committed to long-term environmental protection would have no choice but to deny or to refuse any of the sorts of exploitation, deep-water drilling, and the like that might otherwise be mandated.

The Environmental Protection Authority was established against the opposition of the Greens. We opposed its establishment because it was not an independent agency. It is a Crown agency for the purposes of section 7 of the Crown Entities Act, and as such is subject to direction by the Minister. We acknowledge that clause 22 of this bill seeks to remove the ministerial option of directing the authority to fulfil Government policy one way or another. We can applaud that provision. Unfortunately, any good intention of that provision is seriously undermined by clause 62(4), which denies the agency the right to impose any conditions on a consent approval that have previously been prohibited or vetoed by regulation. In other words, it allows the Minister a back door to ensure that the authority is constrained in what conditions it might place on consents. As I say, that effectively undermines the bill’s apparent good intentions.

Rather than taking this very convoluted approach of giving a little bit of power to the Environmental Protection Authority and then seeking to limit its powers, we challenge the Minister to actually assign the higher status of independent Crown entity to the authority, as he indicated he might do in a speech earlier this year. That would clearly give the authority the mandate—the authority—that an organisation absolutely needs if it is to fulfil its role under this proposed legislation.

We are told that the Environmental Protection Authority will monitor compliance and be responsible for enforcement. My question is where within the authority currently it has the capacity to do that. In respect of an offshore drilling rig in deep water, for example, I would be surprised if the authority inspectors—if we had any—got access to that site through any other means but the good officers basically hitching a ride with the oil company. That suggests that, in practice, it would be very difficult for the agency as it currently exists to do any sensible management, monitoring of compliance, or enforcement of anything that might come under this bill.

The bill talks at some length about taking a cautious approach; it encompasses, effectively, the precautionary principle without actually using those words. Again, it almost seems to avoid coming to grips with the precautionary principle, which is well acknowledged, well proven, and has traction nationally and internationally as a concept and as an application of that concept. We wonder why there has been an attempt to simply talk about taking a cautious approach to decision making, rather than being more explicit about applying the precautionary principle.

The matters to be taken into account by the Environmental Protection Authority include a whole host of things, including the protection of biological diversity and the protection of rare and vulnerable ecosystems. My final comments are that the authority, in order to fulfil this proposed role, will need a remarkably better understanding of, and body of knowledge about, the deep-water marine environment. We know very little about that environment, and this bill does not address it. We look forward to further debate on the bill.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

The Māori Party has taken a keen interest in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, particularly in respect of its capacity to provide for an effective environmental management regime in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf—essentially, the seabed and subsoil of Aotearoa. Respect for the marine environment—the acknowledgment of the importance of land and waters that have provided sustenance—is an essential element of the Māori world view. Implicit in our tikanga is the reminder to respect and protect nature so that future generations may enjoy the same quality of life that we cherish now. We entered into an analysis of this legislation, therefore, with a view as to how it will enhance the sustainability of our environment, and enable mana whenua the rights and responsibilities encompassed in our understanding of kaitiakitanga. We see any investment in protecting our primary ecosystems as being necessary for future economic prosperity, and for the benefit of future generations. As seafaring people, we appreciate that we have partaken of the food garden sown by our ancestors for our benefit. In due course, it will become time for us to resow, to ensure sustenance for the generations to come. That time is now; the opportunity is here, through this legislation. This legislation sets out an obligation for adverse environmental effects to be avoided, remedied, or mitigated.

In coming to this bill, I am reflecting on the submission of one of my Ngāti Kuia whanaunga, Raymond Smith, who presented a submission to the ministerial panel reviewing the Foreshore and Seabed Act on behalf of the rūnanga. He said in that submission: “We need to be part of that group that decides it. We believe that … if we do have our mahinga kai, our pingao areas, that need to be protected, we need to be able to rāhui. We need to be able to have those tools with teeth … for environmental protection, sustainability and even our customary protection, our cultural protection.” This view was reflected throughout our consultation, in the very limited time period between when this bill was introduced and its first reading today.

We understand that iwi welcome a legislative framework to protect environmental outcomes in the marine environment, but there are two overarching issues for them: namely, what is the process to ensure that iwi are involved in further policy development and what are the regulations, and where do iwi fit into the regulations? There is no doubt where iwi are concerned that we want to avoid any potential risk of harm to the environment and, subsequently, any threat to the present and future economic well-being of New Zealand. We see the extension of the responsibilities of kaitiakitanga as taking up a vigilant stance to watch out for the health and safety of people; to safeguard the biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems, and processes; and to protect rare and vulnerable ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species. Our commitment therefore to manage the cumulative effects of all activities on the environment is our uppermost concern in this bill.

First and foremost, we are pleased that the legislation will provide for consultation with Māori and will ensure consideration of Treaty settlements and customary rights and/or interests granted under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. But we are concerned, from some preliminary views of iwi, that the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill currently contains insufficient protection for, and recognition of, Māori interests. There are a number of areas where the regime needs to be strengthened, which could improve the opportunity for more meaningful participation by Māori and enable better protection and recognition of Māori interests. We have approached the Minister with our suggestions in this regard and hope that he will give due thought to his response. One particular suggestion, for example, is for a mandatory requirement for a cultural impact assessment to be completed before an application can be accepted and provision to be made for cost recovery for iwi participation in processes. The preliminary assessment from the iwi we consulted is that they consider that the bill does not meet existing precedent and, of course, in their view and ours it should be seeking to improve upon existing statutory precedent. They also believe that the bill is somewhat hollow. The substantive criteria for balancing environmental impacts and economic outcomes are left to regulations and/or decision makers, which may not provide desirable surety for environmental outcomes.

We note that the Environmental Protection Authority advisory committee, which carries over from a similar committee under the Environmental Risk Management Authority, would also have a role in providing advice on process and decisions under the new legislation. The authority will make decisions on consent applications and will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the legislation, including information management, monitoring, and enforcement functions. If the Māori advisory committee is to be the principal mechanism to facilitate the recognition and protection of Māori interests, it is a poor substitute for explicit statutory recognition of iwi rights and the inclusion of a stronger Treaty of Waitangi clause. At the very least, if the Māori advisory committee is to play an important role, it should be explicitly provided for in the legislation that its advice must be taken into account. I am mindful, too, that the recent Waitangi Tribunal report on the Wai 262 claim, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, discussed the role of advisory committees in some detail and recommended that they should have broader roles, including the discretion to comment at will rather than on referral, and with input from iwi and hapū as to appointments. The appointments to the Māori advisory committee should be considered in areas where iwi have strong coastal interests, and there should be direct iwi and hapū input into those appointments. One of the amendments we will be proposing as the bill proceeds through the House is that statutory status should be accorded to iwi that in some way provides for iwi to be recognised as a partner to the Environmental Protection Authority when it makes its decisions.

The last comment I will make is about clause 14, the Treaty of Waitangi clause. The way this clause is currently worded sets out how the bill recognises the Crown’s responsibility to take account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, rather than as an obligation on a decision maker to have regard to, take account of, recognise, and provide for the Treaty or its principles. This clause is therefore more of a declaration of the Crown’s view that the bill complies with its Treaty obligations, rather than a provision that places a positive, forward-looking obligation on decision makers in terms of the Treaty and Treaty principles. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is insufficient from a Māori point of view. It is also inconsistent with the Resource Management Act, which will apply where activities occur within 12 nautical miles, and which contains provisions that expressly require decision makers to have regard to Māori interests. Our recommendation to the Minister is that the clause should be replaced by a provision requiring that the Treaty or Treaty principles be taken into account. This could be done as part of clause 12, which lists the matters to be taken into account when making decisions under the legislation. It could also be done by way of a new, forward-looking Treaty provision.

We have made a commitment to the Minister that we are happy to work on redrafting the Treaty clause to ensure that it will recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and throughout the whole of the bill, not just the specific parts referred to in the current version. Our support for the bill can be assured only for the first reading. We hope that sending the bill out for consultation during the select committee consideration will enable a far more comprehensive analysis of the bill, and we will be actively encouraging whānau, hapū, and iwi to make submissions.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. It is great to note the fact that we have the support of a wide range of parties—the Greens, the Māori Party, ACT, and United Future—for this legislation. It is remarkable that we should be criticised by the Labour Opposition for bringing this legislation to the House. In the last few years of the Labour Government some 18 wells were drilled in Taranaki. Was any environmental protection put in by the Labour Government? Zero. How much? Zero, nothing, nada. It is risible to believe that we should do nothing, just because the continental shelf has not been completely defined at this stage.

We are bringing this bill to the House to protect the marine environment. We believe in economic development, but also protection of the environment goes hand in hand with that development. At this point in time I would like to give credit to those at work in the North and South Taranaki bights, where oil exploration and development has been going on for 50 years. In fact, as far as I am aware, there has not been any leakage to date from any well hole there, which is a superb reflection on their professionalism and involvement in best practice. The catastrophe we have all noted with alarm in the Gulf of Mexico has even heightened their resolve to improve their activities. It has certainly informed our framing of this legislation. When I talked to an industry leader in Taranaki some months ago he pointed out that the catastrophic spillage was the result of a highly unusual cascade of events, which is a little bit analogous to the holes in a Swiss cheese all aligning at the same time. That was the likelihood of those events occurring.

The exclusive economic zone is a pretty recent construct. Historically, the territorial sovereign limits extended out 3 miles—the distance of a long cannon shot. In the 1970s, a tuna fleet from the United States encountered Ecuadorian naval gun boats. The dispute was taken to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, and, as a result, the third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was enacted, defining the exclusive economic zone at 200 miles. This bill reflects New Zealand’s management and protection of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone, which is an obligation under that United Nations convention. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

Labour is opposing the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, and I will talk about some of the reasons why. Clearly, we have always been in favour of appropriate, responsible, and sustainable use of the environment for economic purposes, but our deep concern over this bill is that its protested balance between economic benefits and environmental protection is insufficient. It is insufficient.

This legislation is not robust enough to give either the Greens or the Māori Party—whose members I have just listened to very carefully—any reassurance that any of the things they profess to hold dear will be maintained under this legislation. Why is that? This bill does not balance, or provide us with any assurance of balancing, economic interests and environmental protection, because in the end it comes down to regulation. Although we might have some confidence in the Environmental Protection Authority, which will be given the oversight of this regulation, it is dependent on the say-so of the Minister for the Environment for the things that it is meant to monitor and assess. The authority is dependent on the Minister’s determination of regulations, which will not come anywhere near this Parliament, will not go anywhere near the Green Party, and will not go anywhere near iwi. The regulations will be the prerogative of the Minister to determine. In our view, that is not sufficient to guarantee the kind of protection that is required.

In the wake of the Gulf of Mexico fiasco, the world has woken up to some of the very serious possible threats if deep-sea drilling and oil exploration are undertaken without due process and without proper monitoring and assessment. When these things happen 200 kilometres out from the shore, when they take place out in deep-sea waters, it is very difficult for anybody in this House to say they know what is really going on. Therefore it is incumbent upon this House to make sure that the protective legislation around deep-sea oil drilling, for example, is as robust as it can possibly be. But that is not what this legislation offers.

There is no guarantee of protection. What we have is the offer of regulations as the need arises, made by a Minister whose track record has been remarkably poor in this regard to date. As the Minister for the Environment he was prepared to sanction and support mining on protected parts of the conservation estate—on schedule 4 land in the conservation estate. It was not until 2,000 people marched down the street in Nelson that this Minister realised he was on the wrong side of public opinion—that he was on the wrong side of how people felt about the need for proper protection of our precious environment. This is the Minister who supported exploratory measures around Dun Mountain, out the back of Nelson, which was exactly the area where his Government had mooted a cycleway extension. So we were being treated to the prospect of a cycleway being constructed around potential mining operations. That would have been a great tourist attraction for the Nelson area!

I cite these examples because this Minister for the Environment, in this legislation, is asking us to trust him to get the regulations right and, worse than that, to get the balance right between economic prosperity and advancement and environmental protection. This Minister has no credibility in that regard. Already, with two proposals very close to home for him, he has failed the test—he has failed the test. It was only latterly that he said that Kahurangi National Park would not be touched by mining.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this

I am pleased to speak in the first reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. But I must say I am rather staggered to be in a situation where the Greens have very clearly supported this bill going to the important select committee stage, where the public can have their say and submissions can be heard, while the Labour Party has just flatly refused—it is just flatly opposing this legislation. I find that staggering. The fact is that our oceans are a major engine driving our climate system. Also, our oceans have been in existence for 3 billion years longer than our land. Yet here we have the Labour Opposition with no interest in regulating and protecting this vast resource.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

As my Labour colleagues who have spoken before me have said, Labour will be opposing the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I say to the member who has just resumed her seat that fine words are all very well and good, but what we need to have is decent legislation if we are serious about protecting New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) Link to this

I move, That the Local Government and Environment Committeeconsider the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill.