• Full Story

Fines for breaching marine consent rules upto $10 million

Email
Print

Fines for breaching marine consent rules upto $10m

3News NZ

Anybody breaching marine consent rules could be fined up to $10 million (file)

Anybody breaching marine consent rules could be fined up to $10 million (file)

The Government is passing a law this week enforcing fines of up to $10 million for anybody breaching marine consent rules in New Zealand waters.

The Government's made radical changes to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Bill, which is expected to pass a final reading on Tuesday.

The bill includes environmental oversight for underwater drilling and other marine activities.

But critics say it doesn't go far enough to protect the environment.

RadioLIVE

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

20/08/2012 7:35:10 p.m.

Jim Seaview wrote:

Quote: "The Government is passing a law this week enforcing fines of up to $10 million for anybody breaching marine consent rules in New Zealand waters."


This legislation sounds Okay in theory with a fine up to $10 million for breaching marine consent rules, but how much did the cleanup cost of the Rena spilling tonnes of oil cost. I heard (not sure) that the cost was in the vicinity of $15 million and if this is true - Why would the Government choose a penalty fine of ony $10 million.

It doesnt make sense and the Rena was not a large ship carrying a lot of oil as cargo. What happens if a supertanker sinks, breaks in half and all the oil is released into our environment.

I would suggest a maximum fine of $30 million as a start.

The Rena disaster also highlighted a fact that NZ did not have the capacity or the infrastructure to handle things quickly and we had to wait for equipment to arrive from overseas.

20/08/2012 3:36:16 p.m.

Neil wrote:

The interesting thing with this type of law is the maximum is never ever used. So why do they not give minimums so the judiciary do not charge less than that and there is no upper limit. In these situations surely it is better to start with a begin point than an end point.

20/08/2012 10:39:18 a.m.

Richard wrote:

The Greens and Labour should be right behind this. Only issue I have with $ value legsilation is that it isn't adjusted annually for infation.

20/08/2012 8:57:41 a.m.

Mike wrote:

If its an improvment in protection, stop complaining and trying to slow it down.

In many things, things can go less than wanted. But we live in the real world, and progress is progressive. This is one step in progress, and no doubt a few years down the track will be more progress.

It would be nice if politics was mature enough not to try to block everything just because someone is outside government. But expecting that kind of maturity out of opposition parties would be asking too much.