Govt buckles to green pressure, changes EEZ Bill
"The criminal penalty [up to $10 million] is on top of the costs of the clean up, which they are still liable for."
Featured commentBUSINESSDESK: The government has stepped back from a key part of its pro-growth agenda, softening the purpose clause in the bill permitting economic development in New Zealand's vast Exclusive Economic Zone.
With the EEZ and Continental Shelf (Environmental Affects) Bill due back in Parliament for its final reading next week, Environment Minister Amy Adams has announced a major change to acknowledge the primacy of the environmental principle of sustainable development.
Speaking to the Environmental Defence Society annual conference in Auckland, Ms Adams also announced changes that the oil and gas and offshore ironsands industries will welcome.
And in a nod to public concern after the oil spill from the wrecked container ship the Rena, the government is punting the maximum fine for environmental damage in the EEZ from $600,000 to $10 million.
The EEZ bill's purpose clause saw an outbreak of intense lobbying from leading environmental groups led by the EDS and criticism late last week from the Commissioner of the Environment Jan Wright, who said the purpose clause was "too weak".
At issue was a move away from "environmental bottom lines" to an older concept of "balance" between environmental and economic factors, which were seen as a bias to favour economic development.
The clause will be amended to incorporate concepts of "sustainable management" in the key Section 5 of the Resource Management Act, a move welcomed by EDS president Gary Taylor and as positive by Greens leader Russel Norman and Labour's deputy leader Grant Robertson, who listened to the announcements.
“The concept of sustainable management is well defined in domestic legislation through more than 20 years of Resource Management Act case law," Ms Adams said.
"The proposed new wording in the bill’s purpose makes it clear that the policy intent is for a similar broad judgment to be applied in the EEZ context.”
Elsewhere, the government's Supplementary Order Paper will clarify that "a transitional period for planned petroleum activities will cover the 2013-14 drilling season and provide a maximum statutory timeframe of six months for a marine consent process".
Oil explorers made submissions expressing concern that the long time frames and high costs required to organise drilling partners and bringing rigs to New Zealand would be compromised by uncertainty over the near-term regulatory regime.
The changes will help ensure activities spanning the 12-mile nautical limit, where the Resource Management Act applies, and the EEZ out to 200km, where the new legislation will apply, Ms Adams said.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions17
$10m? That seems still a few zeros short of a reasonable fine when it comes to a real catastrophe.
The criminal penalty is on top of the costs of the clean up, which they are still liable for.
It would seem that the stupidity of Kiwis is matched by their greed, what they fail to realize being too short sighted to look elsewhere mining corporations operate is that the benefits to citizens will be negligible while the environmental degradation will have huge negative impacts. Sold out by corrupt politicians in the pockets of rapacious corporations. Notice that at the same time Labour was signing deals with Anadarko over the 'texas of the pacific' resources thay were simultaneously passing the foreshore and seabed legislation to ensure none of the resource wealth would end up in Maori hands, and despite all of the lessons of history Kiwis do not get that the National party is less into spreading wealth around than Labour? Yet the citizens of NZ prefer these colonial rip off merchants who represent foreign interests ahead of locals? Kim Dotcom knows how compliant the crown is to foreign interests, the Tuhoe people know exactly how the crown operates. But what do you expect from a land that drops 1080 by the tonne while lying about being green?
To appease environmenttalists Is the the height of absurdity.Only in a small isolated country would such a thing be permitted.
There is much needed wealth in the EEZ and the thought of it being misused in such a manner is disastrous.The resources should be extracted immediately and at all costs.Overseas corporations and our own should be given permits for exploration and mining at once and any obstruction from the Greens or Maori groups should be dealt with by jail sentences.
We the people of New Zealand are running this country not some Greenie liberal leftist socialist organization.The public needs to be educated as to the evils of the Green movement and how it strangulates economic growth and puts honest hard working New Zealanders out of work.
Never should New Zealand wealth be permitted to end up solely in Maori hands.It ends up in ALL New Zealanders hands understand.
And with all of your emphasis on wealth generation (with less regulatory protection), where will you be if we have a major oil spill as in Florida?
There are environmental hazards everywhere .The minerals needed to produce the computer you are typing on on the fuel drilled to transport it to your home comes at a cost.You hypocritical Greenies are quite happy for it to be mined elsewhere as long as its not in your own backyard.
Thank you, Rush Limbaugh :)
But of course one is only allowed to have the self righteous opinions of liberals.
Pattrick Smellie has to be a greenie giving too much credit to the Greens who just about protesting anything put forward by National. When you throw enough stones, you are bound to hit something!
www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com
www.postsustainabilutyinsitute.org
We need to do anything that supports the integrity of the Nation State
- OUR own laws not the UN's
- OUR own resource managment not the UN's
- OUR own political parties not UN sock-puppets like the Greens and Labour (by all means have a pro Nation State Left wing party
The Greens and Labour are in the pocket of foreign powers. The Nats are heading in the same direction albeit in a lower gear.
There is no right or left. Only Freedom or tyranny.
www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org
There you go :)
Haha, Smellie ,
This is a joke. $10m liability for a spill in the EEZ? The Rena has cost over $100m already and the recent Chevron/Transocean/Petrobras spill in Brazil is looking at US$11-20billion.
Wow, only $10'000'000 and you get to destroy any vast area of NZ? Sounds like a steal to me, and we all know who's stealing away the profits offshore
Says someone who drives his fossel fueled car to work each day.
It is easy to point the finger and call everyone a hypocrite because they drive a car or use a computer, but where is the constructive criticism? This is about the sustainable use and management of our resources and protection of our environment in the process. It is often easier to make unreasonable snipes at contributors behind the protective guise of 'anonymity'. It may be more sensible to provide something a little more mature than, "Says someone who drives his fossel fueled car to work each day.". Although, I would not be surprised if this comment is followed by replies of a similar vein.
Yes well we could quite easily throw the question back at yourself and say where is the constructiive criticism.We have already put a case forward arguing that you're hypocritical because you use computers and drive fossil fuel cars.There has been no counter argument as to why it is ok to mine in another country and possibly destroy the environment but not our own.Using your own argument we should therefor not be mining elsewhere either.If you are happy to use a computer or use a car you should accept there is a strong case for extraction from our shores.If not you should cease use of your computer and your car.