Environmental Protection Authority Bill

I move, That the Environmental Protection Authority Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee with an instruction that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 March 2011, and that the committee have the authority to meet as required at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, and during any evening of a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

This bill is an important part of the Government’s programme to strengthen New Zealand’s environment management systems. It is about central government providing stronger leadership on environmental regulation. It is about a balanced approach of growing the economy, but underpinned by sound environmental systems. It is about an efficient Public Service, where we group like activities together under one roof, and it is about ensuring integrity, independence, and consistency in the way we organise our environmental institutions.

The need for this bill is a product of our time. There was a stage in our development when environmental issues were fringe, when environmental considerations were an optional extra, and when only a few public policy issues had an environmental dimension. The reality is that many of the really challenging issues we face this century are environmental, such as the limiting of emissions and a water-constrained world. We need better and stronger public institutions to help us manage those challenges as a nation.

In the 1970s we got our first environment Minister; in the 1980s, the Ministry for the Environment. Just as there are clear separations of responsibility in the economic sphere between Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and Audit New Zealand, in the environment sphere there are different roles. The thinking behind this bill is that the Ministry for the Environment is the brains trust, the policy thinktank, and the adviser to Government, whereas the Environmental Protection Authority is the arm’s-length regulator of environmental standards, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is the environmental auditor.

Internationally, the notion of an environmental protection authority is not new. Such authorities exist in most OECD jurisdictions, including at state level in Australia, the USA, and the European Union. The idea in a New Zealand context came out of National’s 2006 A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand discussion document. Following public consultation it became part of National’s 2008 environment policy.

Part of the rationale for the Environmental Protection Authority is a view that our Resource Management Act system of environmental regulation is too devolved. It does not make sense for a small country of 4.5 million people to have every environmental issue relitigated 78 times with each council. It is also underpinned by a view that some major consents are nationally significant, and, rather than being processed by territorial or regional councils, should be dealt with by a national consenting authority.

The bill before the House establishes the new Environmental Protection Authority as a Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act 2004, with its own appointed board. The bill disestablishes the Environmental Risk Management Authority and transfers all its functions and powers under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to the Environmental Protection Authority. The new authority incorporates the transitional Environmental Protection Authority established within the Ministry for the Environment as part of this Government’s first phase of resource management reforms, introduced in our first 100 days as a Government. We wanted to get that new national consenting function up and running as quickly as possible. The value of that is reinforced by the fact that there are over $5 billion of resource consents currently before it.

The House should be encouraged by the progress that the transitional Environmental Protection Authority has made to date. Four major consents are currently before the authority: the Tauhara Stage Two geothermal project near Taupō, the Waterview Connection in Auckland, Transmission Gully here in Wellington, and the new Wiri men’s prison at Manukau. I contrast the progress made by the Environmental Protection Authority on the Tauhara project—issuing an interim decision within 6½ months and its final decision within 9 months—with the 15-year-long battle over the Wellington inner-city bypass, or the 12-year fiasco over the Whangamata marina. The new processes are proving robust, timely, and well managed by the Environmental Protection Authority.

It was not possible to resolve the important detail of the new authority in the tight time frame of the 100-day first phase of resource management reforms, so this bill presents the detailed work of designing the new authority’s form and functions. The bill achieves that by amending the Climate Change Response Act 2002, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, and the Resource Management Act 1991 to allow for the relevant functions and powers from those Acts to transfer to the new Environmental Protection Authority. I ask the House to note that it is not the Government’s intention to alter the substance of functions carried out under those three Acts; what changes is the body responsible for them.

The bill transfers some administrative functions of the emissions trading scheme from the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry for the Environment to the Environmental Protection Authority. These functions include the emissions trading register and the allocation of New Zealand units for industry and agriculture. The administration of the forestry portion of the emissions trading scheme appropriately remains with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. It is my intention that the Environmental Protection Authority will also assume responsibility for the regulatory functions necessary under the imports and export orders and the Ozone Layer Protection Act, and their regulations. Regulatory changes to give effect to that change will likely occur alongside the progress of the bill.

The Government is also working on legislation on New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. New Zealand’s marine environment is an integral part of our nation, and contributes significantly to our economy and environment. Obviously it is important to our fishing, aquaculture, oil and gas, tourism, transport, and telecommunications industries. However, there is currently no way to effectively manage the environmental impact of activities within the exclusive economic zone. The Government is determined to ensure that New Zealand’s marine environment is properly protected as we expand development in that area. We run not only an environmental risk; the gap in regulation leads to uncertainty, and could constrain future economic growth from New Zealand’s extensive marine resources. It is therefore my intention that the Environmental Protection Authority be responsible for the permitting functions that will arise from that proposed exclusive economic zone legislation.

A further function of the Environmental Protection Authority under clause 12 will be the undertaking of environmental assessments under the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994, which currently resides within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Again, I think most members would subscribe to the view that the Environmental Protection Authority, rather than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is the better home for that role.

The bill quite deliberately creates a separation between the Minister and regulatory functions. I note, for instance, that when we brought before the House amendments to moderate the emissions trading scheme a number of thoughtful submissions sought greater separation between the management of the registry by the Minister and our decisions over the emissions trading scheme in respect of prosecution and non-compliance. This bill refines the administration of the emissions trading scheme to achieve that separation. The broader issue of Ministers being close to policy but at arm’s length from regulatory functions is generally good public policy, and is being applied in this bill.

I acknowledge the Māori Party’s support for this bill. The capacity of National and the Māori Party to work together on important environmental legislation reflects a common interest in progressing reforms that carefully balance economic and environmental interests.

To summarise this bill, it brings together under one Crown authority a range of environmental regulatory functions that currently partially reside within the Ministry for the Environment, the Environmental Risk Management Authority, the Ministry of Economic Development, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as well as providing stronger national direction on roles that currently reside within our 86 regional and territorial authorities.

This bill is a balanced environmental approach. It reinforces the importance of scientific skills in good environmental decision-making. It recognises the importance to our economy of efficiency in environmental regulation. The time for a comprehensive Environmental Protection Authority for New Zealand has come. I commend the bill to the House.

I move that all the words after the word “committee” in the motion be deleted. The Minister for the Environment rejoices publicly in good process and in collaborative processes in the environmental area, yet here we have a motion presaging a reference of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill to a select committee that expresses an intention on the part of the Government to have the Local Government and Environment Committee sit all hours and to have members of the committee deprived of their ability to sit in the House when they might be required to do so, because they will be needed on the Local Government and Environment Committee to look at the detail of the bill.

Bad legislation starts with bad process, and nowhere is that truer than in the environmental area. The Minister should know better, having trumpeted the collaborative process started by the previous Labour Government with the Land and Water Forum. I think every member of this House hopes that that process will bear fruit, but the lesson should be that bad process will lead to bad outcomes. Here, we start the Environmental Protection Authority Bill with bad process and bad faith from the Minister, which are hallmarks, unfortunately, of his tenure in the role of Minister for the Environment.

New Zealand’s pristine natural environment is something we should protect and treat with respect. Labour knows that the preservation of our vital natural spaces is necessary not only to our economy but to preserving our very way of life. The real danger in the Environmental Protection Authority Bill, at least as it has been brought to the House by the Minister, is that it will be used simply as a vehicle to sidetrack the democratic process. This Government has nearly come to the end of its first term—hopefully its only term—and over the past 2 years it has developed a very bad record on environmental protection. It has excelled in circumventing and abusing the democratic process when it comes to the environment. If we are to judge this Government on its actions rather than its words, then the fear must be that the Environmental Protection Authority will be used from the outset, as we have just seen signalled by the Minister’s intended motion about the select committee, to undermine democratic procedures.

The House should note that in its current form, the transitional Environmental Protection Authority within the Ministry for the Environment is already being used by the National Government as part of its assault on democracy and on consultation with local communities. The Minister virtually admitted in his speech—though, of course, he put it much more rosily than this—that the Environmental Protection Authority has been used to fast track controversial projects such as the Waterview Connection, despite requests by the Eden Albert Community Board and the Auckland City Council to have the submission period extended. These requests were deliberately ignored under the existing Environmental Protection Authority process. In the case of Transmission Gully, which was cited by the Minister, the Environmental Protection Authority has been used to circumvent the Wellington Regional Council’s freshwater plan. It looks as if the Environmental Protection Authority will also be used to create a private prison in South Auckland, despite the objections again in the media today of local residents.

All those instances involve people being denied the opportunity to have their say on issues that affect their communities. It is not a good start for the Environmental Protection Authority, despite the fair words we have heard from the Minister. Ideally, the creation of an independent authority would eliminate, rather than exacerbate, these problems, but that is unlikely to be the case. The establishment authority has been understaffed, and it appears there will be no new resources allocated to the new authority. So, fundamentally, why would anybody expect environmental outcomes to improve? More worryingly, the board of this “independent” authority will be accountable to Dr Nick Smith. The only thing worse than an entity that has problems with democratic processes because of the very way that it is set up is one that is ostensibly independent, but in reality is at the whim of that Minister.

If the Government cared at all about empowering communities, it would not be stripping councils of the power to consent and regulate off-shore oil and gas operations, as this bill will do. The processing of these sorts of applications needs to take the feedback of communities and iwi into account, and who better to take into account that feedback than local, democratically elected councils? It is far better to have that happening than to have it happen through some central body under the control of the Minister in Wellington. That violates the very spirit of the Resource Management Act and gets rid of all local input. The power should be residing locally, rather than having it deposited in some body in Wellington.

Not only have we had heard the Minister foreshadow depriving members of the Local Government and Environment Committee of being able to perform their ordinary parliamentary duties but also we have had the example of the Government’s unprecedented abuse of urgency through its term in Parliament so far. This has been accompanied by the firing of democratically elected representatives in Canterbury, and that is a cause for great concern. So far, the track record of this Government on the environment provides little comfort that the new Environmental Protection Authority will do much for environmental protection, at all.

There are some examples worth recording in this House tonight. The regulation of air quality is one example that I have asked the Minister about a number of times. National has effectively thrown away the reins by extending the deadline for the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality to 2018. Ironically, this is a Government that is willing to implement untested, untrialled national standards for schools, but refuses to place any importance on national standards for air quality, which are based on scientific research. The Government is willing to put at risk not only our environment but also, potentially, people’s lives.

The Minister cited the emissions trading scheme in his speech. We have seen National water down the emissions trading scheme and make changes to it so that hard-working Kiwi families have to pay for big businesses’ pollution, while watching climate change continue to worsen.

💬 Nicky Wagner: That’s half the cost.

Here they go, repeating the mantra of balance between the economy and the environment, as if that myth could somehow take hold, when in fact the reality is that they are not separate criteria; it is the same one.

💬 Chris Tremain: The reality is that it took you guys 8 years to get legislation in this House to protect the environment—8 years!

Mr Tremain is talking about how long it took to get an emissions trading scheme into place. It came into place along with an energy strategy, a meaningful transport strategy, and a whole host of measures to actually control New Zealand’s emissions. What do we see under this Government? There is no plan at all to deal with emissions.

As if the watering down of the emissions trading scheme was not bad enough, we then saw John Key’s Government try to get its hand on New Zealand’s most precious schedule 4 land. It backed down only after the hugest public outcry. There has been a failure to adopt environmental standards for our waterways. There has been the abolition of a democratically elected council in a bid to help big corporate dairy-farming interests, and the repeal of the biofuel obligation. The biofuel obligation has been replaced with a biofuels grants scheme that has had a 1 percent take-up over the past year. Meanwhile several biofuels businesses that the Labour Government helped to get off the ground have lost business and shut down because of National’s changes. National just does not have a plan for the future, especially not when the environment is involved.

It has watered down the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, leaving the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority without any meaningful plan to measure itself against. It now effectively exists to make it look as if this Government cares about the environment. The Government has watered down the energy strategy—the plan to have 90 percent of our energy coming from renewable sources by 2025. National’s focus in that plan, as has recently been published, is all about developing coal and petroleum. They are 19th century solutions to 21st century problems.

Labour members think it is important to have a decent authority advising the Government on matters relating to the environment, but that authority has to be independent and not subject to abuse from a Minister who has no regard for process. As the bill stands, this authority stands in great danger of abuse from a Government that has shown no respect for the environment or for democracy. We will have to come up with a much better bill at the select committee if Labour is going to be able to support this legislation further. Although we will support sending the bill to the select committee, because of the record that I have outlined in the House tonight we will be looking at the bill very, very carefully to ensure it is much more fit for purpose than it is currently.

I rise to support the Environmental Protection Authority Bill 2010. The Environmental Protection Authority is designed to provide the country with strong and independent environmental oversight—strong and independent. Despite Mr Chauvel’s protests, the concept has wide acceptance across the House and by environmental groups. I would like to quote from the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, which said: “The Government decision to establish an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fully fledged is welcomed.”

It is interesting to see that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is also positive about the Environmental Protection Authority. She said: “I’m pleased to see the EPA will be a stand-alone entity as that will ensure its work is not only independent but that it is seen to be independent. I’m also encouraged to see that the new EPA will have a high level of technical capability.” That was said by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright.

This bill is very significant, because it allows the Government to provide stronger central government leadership on environmental issues. New Zealand is known overseas for its beautiful natural environment, and we need to make sure we deliver on our international reputation as a clean, green country. We must improve on the environmental outcomes we inherited from 9 years of the previous Labour Government. Our environmental practices must reflect our reputation and our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand.

The establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority was part of National’s election promises and it is part of our plan for better environmental outcomes. It underpins our blue-green vision of protecting the environment while growing the economy. The two must go hand in hand. New Zealanders are closely connected to their local environments, but the existing legislative framework is too decentralised and some issues are often relitigated across our local authorities. We want to use our personal energy and resources to conserve and to enhance the environment rather than to continually relitigate the same old issues in different places. There is a lot of support for the fact that it is more efficient and effective for a small country of just over 4 million people to regulate some environmental issues nationally.

This bill is an omnibus bill. It amends several environmental Acts and establishes the new Environmental Protection Authority as a Crown agent under the Crown Entities Act 2004. It requires the Environmental Protection Authority to advise the Minister and exercise powers conferred on it by the Climate Change Response Act 2002, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, and the Resource Management Act 1991. The bill is designed to give greater clarity to environmental functions. The Government’s reforms are about the Ministry for the Environment being focused on policy, the Environmental Protection Authority being focused on administrating regulations, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment being an overall systems auditor. That seems to us to be a pretty good pattern and a pretty good template.

The Environmental Protection Authority will also bring together under one entity regulatory functions concerning the environment that are presently split between the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It will ensure that regulatory functions are independent from Ministers. The Government believes that functions such as national consenting and the administration of the emissions trading scheme should be at arm’s length from the Government and in an independent Crown entity.

The Environmental Protection Authority is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to the efficient, effective, and transparent management of the New Zealand environment and its natural and physical resources, and enables New Zealand to meet its international obligations. Combining technical and regulatory skills in one body will lead to better-informed environmental decisions and greater protection for our natural resources. The bill brings together a wide range of regulatory functions and provides stronger national direction to the environmental roles of the regional and district councils. The bill also provides for Māori advisory committees to provide advice and assistance to the Environmental Protection Authority on policy matters, processes, and decisions.

The Environmental Protection Authority will administer the emissions trading scheme and take over the responsibilities of the Environmental Risk Management Authority under the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act 1996. The new Environmental Protection Authority will also take over the functions of the temporary Environmental Protection Authority, which was established under the amended Resource Management Act last year. There is also potential for further growth of the Environmental Protection Authority where other appropriate functions could be transferred to it.

The establishment of a stand-alone Environmental Protection Authority is positive for our environment and for our natural resources. It will be a strong independent regulatory authority, and it will ensure the protection of our environment at a national level. I support this bill and commend it to the House.

I am pleased to follow the convenor of the National blue-green caucus—and how apt it is that I should follow on. Blue-green algae, I understand, is the most toxic algae found in New Zealand’s waterways. It is killing dogs in several rivers in Canterbury that manage to eat some of that blue-green algae. How appropriate and apt it is to follow on from that speaker, Nicky Wagner!

The referral of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee will be supported by the Labour Party. We believe there could be some real value in a properly funded and constituted Environmental Protection Authority. But the question is whether this will provide the powers and teeth that are necessary to protect our environment. I do believe that is what the Hon Dr Nick Smith wanted—I believe that. He has spoken strongly about protecting the environment, and prior to the election he and the blue-green caucus had a very strong paper, A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand, which promoted the Ministry for the Environment being replaced by an Environmental Protection Authority—and, of course, we see that heralded tonight—and also replaced by a ministry for sustainable development. I do not see the second leg of that policy emerging; maybe that is still in the offing, but I have my doubts. I have very real doubts that we will see that—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It didn’t make it to policy.

It did not make it to policy from A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand, by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. So there we go; it did not come through. Why did it not come through? Prior to the election, and certainly from the election onwards, I think that Nick Smith lost ground, and I think the first signal of that came on 20 December 2008 when a forum was called by Federated Farmers for irrigators across Canterbury. It was attended by Gerry Brownlee as Minister for Economic Development, by Bill English as Minister of Finance, and by David Carter as Minister of Agriculture, but Nick Smith was not there. I think they did not want any environmental voice present at that meeting, because that forum set the scene for the demolition of Environment Canterbury, which followed in rapid fashion from thereon.

I think the Environment Canterbury legislation went further than Dr Smith would have wanted—I really would say that. I think he would not have wanted, for instance, the inclusion at the eleventh hour of the move to do away with the process for awarding and retaining water conservation orders. That amendment to that bill, as included and presented and passed by this House after 30 hours of urgency, which, I note, we will see mirrored by this legislation tonight, nearly cost him the support of many in the Land and Water Forum. Indeed, I think his own good friend and confidant, Guy Salmon, was horrified at the late addition to the bill, and he said so publicly. The environmental movement, in trying to give some support to the good ambitions of Dr Nick Smith, I think, felt betrayed by the Environment Canterbury legislation and the Act as it was passed through.

Then we come to today, where for the second time I asked Dr Smith in the House about the Prime Minister’s statement in February that he wants to see new water schemes in place in Canterbury next year. The question that flows from that is how on earth he can, as the Minister for the Environment, get in place new environmental controls in that very rapid time frame. The truth of it is that he cannot do that. There is no way on God’s earth that he can follow through with the good recommendations from the Land and Water Forum, which managed to hold together despite the tests that the Environment Canterbury legislation put to it. It knows there can be no way that Dr Smith can start implementing the recommendations that it has put up, because they are complex. They require legislation and implementation, and they will not happen in a rapid fashion. Here we have the Environmental Protection Authority, as promulgated by this bill. It will not come into force until July next year, yet here we have the Prime Minister saying he wants to see new water schemes in place in Canterbury and possibly Otago next year. There is no way we will see any environmental change through that time frame.

The other aspect of this that is interesting is that the Minister wanted the Environmental Protection Authority to start a year earlier, because he told the New Zealand Planning Institute on 8 May last year in a speech that is on the Beehive website that he wanted “the expanded EPA fully operational by 1 July 2010.”—1 July 2010. No wonder we are now seeing urgency attached, because here we are, nearly 18 months after he said he wanted the Environmental Protection Authority operational. I think the reasons for that are very, very clear. I think what has happened in the Cabinet process is that a very clear message is being sent to Dr Smith to not think he will get new money for any agency, especially to deal with protecting the environment, because the Prime Minister has an agenda for rapid growth in Canterbury and other places, and Cabinet does not want anything getting in the way of that through the Environmental Protection Authority or anything else.

Of course, even when the Environmental Protection Authority comes into effect on 1 July next year—so too late to stop any of the things that will happen with those new water schemes coming into place—how many people will be employed by the Environmental Protection Authority? How big an agency will it be to deal with all of the critical environmental issues that this nation faces and that I think this Minister acknowledges? Certainly, in Opposition, time and time again he took the call and talked about the damage to freshwater quality and the whole range of environmental damage that was being perpetrated. What will we see? The budget for the Environmental Protection Authority will be in the order of $26 million. That will involve 140 staff. One would think that that is a pretty good number of staff if we want to see some serious change to the way we protect our most precious resource.

The very driver of our economic base as a nation comes out of our freshwater sources. We make our reputation in the world on the basis of being clean and green. Water is fundamental to that. Until we get water right, and I believe that the Minister wants to get it right, we will not protect our market edge in the world economy. We must improve water quality. If we have 140 staff dedicated to improving that, that would be a great start. However, there is a problem. Of that 140 staff that the Environmental Protection Authority will employ, 90 of them are coming across from the Environmental Risk Management Authority. So 90 out of 140 will come from the Environmental Risk Management Authority. That is good; it does a great job, too. It has an important environmental protection job, but they are not new staff; they are transferred staff in this grand new authority that the Minister is establishing under this bill.

What else will the Environmental Protection Authority do? It will take on and look after the issues of climate change. How many staff will be involved in dealing with that? Maybe 20 staff? So now we are up to 110 of the 140 staff of the Environmental Protection Authority who will not be dealing with the critical issue of freshwater quality. Who else will be employed by the Environmental Protection Authority? We will see staff working at the Ministry of Economic Development on management of living modified organisms. There will be a handful of staff there; maybe not a large number. The Antarctica division that is currently within the Ministry for the Environment is moving across. That division will be part of the new Environmental Protection Authority, as well. Then, we will also have staff involved in protecting our exclusive economic zone. There is one other element within the Environmental Protection Authority, which is the fast-track agency. That is the agency that pushes through the projects like the Waterview Connection when the Government wants to fast track them.

I want the Minister to say at some point what the numbers of staff are who will deal with the flagship issue of freshwater quality. Where are they? What will they do, and how many of them will there be? By my count, there might be none coming across to deal with the critical issue of freshwater quality. That will be to the detriment of New Zealand. The Environmental Protection Authority will be against a Prime Minister who is still pushing for rapid growth in Canterbury and still wants to see rapid runs on the board in terms of growth. We have a Minister with a much-vaunted flagship agency that will not actually have any staff to do the job we would all like to see it do in terms of protecting our most precious resource of all, which is fresh water. There is nobody there to do the job, unless Bill English digs into his pockets and finds some new funding. Given the track record of that Minister, I suggest that that is very, very unlikely. As my colleague Charles Chauvel noted, the track record beyond the rhetoric of this Government is that it talks the talk of environmental protection, and it established the Environmental Protection Authority under this bill, but there will not be the staff and resources to deliver the goods that the Government says it wants to deliver and that New Zealanders want to see delivered. There is not the staffing there under this bill or under this agency, and that is a tragic loss for New Zealand.

Kia ora koutou. When the Environmental Protection Authority Bill first appeared a week or so ago, I recalled an experience prior to the 2005 election when I spoke on behalf of the Greens at an event organised by the Resource Management Law Association. Dr Nick Smith was also at that event, clearly speaking for National. In the course of his presentation, Dr Smith talked in positive terms about the establishment of some sort of environmental protection agency. He appeared slightly surprised when I evinced Green support with a similar view that we also believed that there was value in having a genuinely independent, well-resourced, stand-alone agency that was one step removed from a policy process and some several steps removed from ministerial control or political advocacy, and, indeed, an agency that could stand and speak and be the advocate for the environment, because that is what is missing in this. It has long been our policy to support the idea of an agency that is an independent environmental reporter, advocate, and an organisation that can make good decisions with the well-being of the environment in mind. If we do not maintain a good environment, our economic and social arrangements will collapse in their turn.

Clearly, it would be perverse of us not to support the establishment of this authority, but we do so, as has been commented by Labour speakers, with considerable reservation. There are elements of this bill that lead us to think that we would not see the genuinely strong, independent, and well-resourced agency that is required to do this job and do it well. Part of our concern arises from the current situation where the nascent, skeletal Environmental Protection Authority currently exists due to the haste of this Government to establish something rather than do the job properly in one hit. We are very concerned about the way that the Environmental Protection Authority, which is scarcely off the ground, is allegedly dealing with quite a number of very substantial matters that are of considerable public concern and interest, and have major long-term environmental, and, indeed, economic, consequences.

Clearly the Waterview Connection situation is one of these. I attended one of the public meetings some weeks ago where the public allegedly was to be informed and enabled to make sensible submissions on the final proposals for the Waterview Connection. The public was presented with a massive amount of information, much of it highly technical in nature, and allowed 20 working days to comment about that extremely complex series of decisions, including around 53 individual resource consents. The people of Waterview, Mount Albert, and Point Chevalier were given 20 days, as lay people, to try to come up with submissions. I said at the time that it would challenge a very good, well-resourced, and effective resource management consultancy to come up with a comprehensive submission to such an enormous project. If this is to be the way of the Environmental Protection Authority—that it will be obliged to do things quickly, shabbily, and without appropriate public involvement—then that is not an environmental protection authority that we could continue to support.

It is true that since 1991, particularly in matters of resource management, there has been a need for more central direction and for more consistency within and between the various local and regional agencies. Clearly, central government was remiss for many years under a variety of Governments in not promptly and comprehensively providing national policy standards and national environmental standards. As an inevitable outcome of that, the regions in particular were obliged to invent wheels of their own accord. We got a lack of consistency, a great deal of time and effort was lost, and the implementation of the Resource Management Act, in particular, was suboptimal for that reason. It was observed not only by players and commentators within New Zealand but also by international researchers—everyone from independent academic researchers through to the OECD—that we desperately needed a little more central direction. There did not necessarily need to be more control, but there certainly needed to be more direction, support, and resourcing for the satisfactory implementation of what was, and still is, in many regards, quite visionary and ground-breaking legislation.

One of the positive advantages of this new authority is that it will bring together a range of skills, abilities, and, particularly, technical and scientific skills, and I believe that is a good thing. We are a small country with a relatively small pool of scientists—which is getting smaller by the minute, as our failure to give a good career path to scientists has led to its inevitable reduction—but although I entirely endorse the idea of bringing together and concentrating skills, knowledge, ability, and resources, I hope that this agency is not one where we have a concentration of world views and values to such an extent that the culture of the organisation becomes monosyllabic. It is critical that this agency, albeit a regulatory agency, employs and has within its numbers people with a range of world views and values, so that it can make good determinations that will engage with the range of values and beliefs reflected in the broader society.

We are told that the agency will give some certainty of process. Again, that is a desirable thing. Members of the public, as well as specialists and, indeed, politicians, ought to be able to rely on certainty of process. But let us hope that there is not an equivalent certainty of outcome. Increasingly, when we hear the language of streamlining, taking away barriers, and taking away cost from resource management processes and other processes, we see that what is really intended is to get faster, to the point where the agency says yes to any application. There is a remarkable concentration, it seems, on getting faster, to the point where the agency says yes to the development, no matter what its quality. We think that, equally, there should be situations where we get quickly to the point of saying no where there are clear environmental, social, or economic reasons why we ought to resist, object to, and reject entirely some of the very flawed applications we have seen.

I would have to say that four words in this bill give some heart, and they are quite sweet to us in the Green Party. Those four words are: “ERMA will be disestablished.” The Environmental Risk Management Authority, or ERMA, has often been called the authority that never saw an application it did not like, particularly in respect of genetic modification and genetic engineering. Unfortunately, what could have been a robust, positive, useful organisation has become a rubber stamp and very little else. It has allowed, tolerated, and passed some extraordinarily risky, scientifically unsound, ethically untenable applications, and we will not in any way regret the passing of that organisation. We hope, quite sincerely, that this new organisation, this new authority, will have a much more inquisitive and challenging culture that will lead to much better and more balanced outcomes.

The two primary principles of resource management law that the Greens stand by and will continue to defend are those of public participation and environmental protection. The language of the Resource Management Act is that we ought to use, develop, and protect our natural and physical resources. There has been a great deal of use over the years and a great deal of development—some of it good, much of it less good—and it is critical that this authority is genuinely an environmental protection authority, not a developmental facilitation authority. Given the way in which this bill is constructed, and some of the past and present activities and focus of this Government, it is our major concern that this agency will be misused in that way.

We heard the Minister for the Environment, in his introduction to the bill, use the word “balance”. Clearly, we in the Green Party have come to recognise that the word “balance is, in fact, shorthand for trading off a little more environmental degradation for a little more short-term economic gain, and that is not a notion of balance that we can comprehend or support. What is actually called for is a clear understanding of a genuine engagement between our social and economic needs and the absolutely critical, irrevocable protection of the environment without which we have no future. The Minister also recommended having stronger public institutions. We would like to see that made flesh, rather than this continual chipping away at the capacity of the public service to do its work well.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party with lukewarm support for the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. ACT supports the bill as far as its referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee, but for a whole raft of reasons, we are reluctant to take that support any further.

The ACT Party is all for any legislation that removes pointless bureaucracy and makes life easier for those who wish to get ahead. The bill’s explanatory note makes many good noises, such as: “The purpose of creating an EPA is to more effectively, efficiently and transparently manage the regulation of New Zealand’s environment and natural and physical resources.” If only! As a rule, one does not reduce regulation by creating an extra regulatory body. An additional layer of bureaucracy, no matter how well meaning, is still an additional layer of bureaucracy. With it comes more paperwork, more muddled decision-making, and, of course, more demand for Government funding that could be better spent elsewhere. A case in point: the regulatory impact statement estimates the extra one-off capital and establishment costs to be between $1.8 million and $3.5 million, with an increase in annual costs of up to $2.4 million.

Labour seems to think that having 140 staff will improve the cleanliness of our water, and that that number is not enough. So my question asks how many people it takes to make the water clean. My answer—as Labour does not seem to know—is that the water has to want to be clean!

If this bill were to give truth to its intentions, it would streamline the system. That might very well mean getting rid of the regional councils and all the obstacles and complexities that they bring to the table. As the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, showed, one can eliminate all sorts of duplicated practices by removing the bodies that create said duplications, and that saves ratepayers huge amounts of time and money. Turning eight factional councils into one unified body did precisely that.

If the Government was truly serious about attacking regulations, it would scrap the Climate Change Response Act 2002, which would remove clauses 48 to 64 in a flash.

When Australia is backtracking on the need for an emissions trading scheme and the United States has rejected a cap-and-trade plan, it is a nonsense that New Zealand continues to cling to our pointless scheme. Because of this Government’s stubbornness on this issue, we all have to waste our time in the House amending laws to ensure that the right agency is appointing enforcement officers, collecting emissions penalties, etc., etc.

ACT is in favour of letting this bill go to a select committee in the interests of democracy, but for the reasons specified, it would take a great many changes to the bill to convince us to support it any further than that.

I am pleased to stand and speak in the first reading of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. It is well recognised that New Zealand has led the way in resource management legislation, and this bill provides the necessary central direction and leadership to support our existing resource management legislation.

In the course of what I will say this evening I will bring in a practical example of how the Environmental Protection Authority has been operating. It is a bit unfortunate that members of the Opposition seem to think that simplifying and streamlining legislation leads to worse outcomes for the environment. Members on this side of the House agree that we are able to reduce bureaucracy, reduce red tape, and get important projects under way without any degradation of the environment. The members opposite are joining some dots that are not there. Members on this side of the House are proud to have a record of reforming resource management legislation to put something in place that provides greater central direction in order to make sure that our pristine environment, of which we are all so proud, continues to be protected, and at the same time has the ability to create jobs and build infrastructure that this country so desperately needs.

The other thing that concerned me a tad was hearing one of the Opposition speakers say that the Environmental Protection Authority reduces democracy. I thought that that member clearly does not understand what this legislation is about. If we look at any example—one of which I will talk about in a little while is the Contact Energy Tauhara Stage Two plant in my electorate—we see that there is no reduction in democracy. I was a little perturbed that perhaps the member had not read the bill or understood what the Environmental Protection Authority is all about.

Of the organisations that are supportive of this work, one that is worth quoting is the Environmental Defence Society, whose executive director, Gary Taylor, is known for his tireless lobbying of all sides of the House to ensure that our environment is protected. In his words: “The EPA is to become the national environmental regulator and it’s vital that it is free from political influence. … We are pleased to see the continuing evolution of the EPA as a national, independent, environmental regulator.” We have some strong supporters of this legislation. The Green member David Clendon, who spoke before me, also said that the Green Party supports the setting up of this type of authority, so I shall look forward to its input in the select committee process.

But let us look for a moment at some of the functions of the Environmental Protection Authority. One is that it will look after the administration and management of projects of national significance and applications that are called in under the Resource Management Act. I thought it would be useful to use the example of a project in the Taupō electorate. Before the end of this Parliament alone, we are expecting $6 billion worth of applications for infrastructure projects to be put before the Environmental Protection Authority—$6 billion worth. A local example is Contact Energy’s Tauhara Stage Two geothermal project, which is expected to bring around $1 billion worth of investment into the Taupō region—$1 billion worth of investment. This is also significant in terms of forwarding the Government’s goal of producing 90 percent of all electricity in New Zealand from renewable sources. Again, one of the Opposition members completely forgot that we have massive geothermal developments in this country, which was a bit sad and shows how ill-informed Opposition members are.

This process means that the application for a project of this size will be turned round in less than 9 months. What does that mean? No, it does not mean that democracy is short-circuited, and, no, it does not mean that people do not have input. To highlight that point, I have brought to the House some of the documentation from the Environmental Protection Authority on the Tauhara Stage Two geothermal development project. It states exactly how the process works, why the Minister for the Environment directed it to a board of inquiry, and what the Environmental Protection Authority’s role is in terms of administering the process for hearing and deciding on the applications. There is a really nice part in the documentation that I thought the Opposition might not be aware of. It is a concept called “friends of submitters”. Support is provided for those who want to make a submission. They do not have to be a resource management lawyer or expert; they will have a resource management consultant walk alongside them, so that they can get the best advice they need in order to make a submission.

This particular project will bring $1 billion into my electorate. I am really proud that it was approved. Unlike some members on the other side of the Chamber, I think the creation of jobs and the building of infrastructure is vital. It does not mean that the environment is trashed. The guys opposite connected some dots that did not need to be connected. I am proud that this Government is showing central leadership and protecting the environment for many generations to come. Thank you.

I do not disagree with the previous speaker. If we can protect our environment and go forward economically, there is absolutely no problem. I think some of the work that has been going on in geothermal exploration, and the potential that it holds for New Zealand, is fantastic. We could lead not only in that form of energy but also in the science around it that is being created.

In principle Labour is in support of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. We would like to see it go to the select committee, and we would very much like to hear a lot of the submitters, who have obviously put some work in behind the scenes, submit to the select committee in public. We do support the establishment of an independent agency, a stand-alone agency, and an agency that is away from the Minister—that has some distance from the Minister—to look at the impact on the environment and not be swayed by political considerations, political pressures, and to advocate for the environment where necessary. I think that is very important. I am heartened in a way to see the people who have been behind the principle of this bill—people like Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and Gary Taylor. There are many people who have worked hard for our environment in New Zealand.

The question really is whether these factors—independence, the ability to work independently of a Minister and advocate for the environment, and to hear people’s concerns and have a transparent and open process of submissions—will actually occur. Unlike the previous speaker, Louise Upston, I am not hugely heartened by what has happened recently. One of the biggest projects, one of National’s roads of national significance, State Highway 20, runs through the suburb of Waterview, which is in my electorate. The community there has not, I would argue, been given the information that it needs.

The people of Waterview have been given enormous amounts of technical documentation to go through in 20 working days. There are some six folders of documentation and 54 different resource consents to look through. If I wanted to build a non-complying deck on the back of my house, my neighbour would get 20 working days in which to consider it. For this project, people in the Waterview community are getting exactly the same amount of time, and I believe that that is totally and utterly inadequate. The project has been fast tracked against the wishes of the Auckland City Council, and against the wishes of the then Eden Albert Community Board. Both were ignored, and they did not want this project to happen. They had 20 working days in which to make submissions. They have now got back an enormous amount of material in order to be able to consider expert opinion. Even the most accomplished engineering firm in Auckland would need that amount of time to go through the volume of material that ordinary residents in my electorate have been asked to go through.

Then, over Christmas last year—Mr Joyce is famous for making announcements during the Christmas period—the project was completely changed. Six days before Christmas, he announced that. Of course, he did that because there would not be any publicity over the Christmas period. There is a very cynical approach of ramming this project through. People had to study the material on that over the Christmas break, and then they had to come back to the submission process early in the new year.

The other aspect, other than the process, is the fact that some of the residents’ concerns are very significant. Let us take, for example, the smokestack. There are two exhaust stacks on this motorway. They will be built 45 metres from a primary school and kindergarten. They will be 70 metres high, and they will not be filtered. An enormous construction will go up right beside a primary school. It will take out four of the local soccer fields in the area, and although some of them will be replaced in other areas, it will scatter the fields all across the region. The very simple things that would make this project much more acceptable to the local community have been completely ignored. One small example of that is that if the Metro Football Club and the Metro Softball Club, which are right beside the motorway, had an all-weather pitch, they would be able to double or triple the number of games being played on that field. That fact is being ignored.

This motorway is a $1.4 billion project, and the Auckland City Council has made a number of submissions on the things it wants to have in order to mitigate the effects on the local community. In a $1.4 billion project, can we not find the $10 million, or whatever it takes, to make an enormous difference and improve the lives of the local community?

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Whatever it takes—that is the Labour Party. Whatever it takes.

If this was going through the North Shore, I say to Dr Mapp, he would be standing where I am standing and demanding the money that he needed in order to mitigate some of those sorts of impacts. We are talking about a six-lane highway through a suburban region.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: He wants tunnels.

Of course he wants tunnels. These people simply do not want to have a 70-metre high smokestack right beside their primary school. I do not think that is too much to ask.

The other thing that I will talk about is the control building that is to be built. It was going to be 6 metres high; we are now told that it might be 10 metres high. The dimensions of this project are changing as the residents are making their submissions. It has not even been finalised, and the residents are being asked to make submissions. Also, with regard to the acquisition of houses on the motorway route, a number of people in my electorate have said whoever is doing the valuation of the houses in the region is seriously undervaluing them. When people get independent valuations, they find that the independent valuations are invariably at least 20 percent higher than the valuations done by the approved valuer for the New Zealand Transport Agency.

The Waterview project is an example of the Environmental Protection Authority in process; it is an example of the way that it may work. If this is the way that it will work, and if this is the experience that we can take before the bill even comes before the select committee, then I think we have some major concerns about it. I will be very interested to hear not only the views of the local community but also the views of other submitters who are trying to protect the environment. So far, I do not see any independence from the Minister. I do not see an agency that will go out and really promote the environment. I do not see an agency that will really allow the full voice of the local community to have a real say on a project such as the Waterview tunnel project.

I believe that this is important legislation. It could bring some very, very good outcomes to our environment, but only if—and I repeat, only if—the authority is independent, truly listens to the community, and is able to go out and advocate for our environment. I say, from looking at the example of Waterview and what is happening there, that I do not have a lot of confidence that this will be the case. When we see how the Environmental Protection Authority is being rolled out in practice, we see that this bill is not the legislation that we had hoped it might be and will not bring the outcomes that we hoped it might bring. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I look forward very much to hear the views of those out there who are listening to this debate tonight.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to rise and speak on the Environment Protection Authority Bill. I will speak briefly. This excellent bill establishes the Environmental Protection Authority as a stand-alone Crown agent to perform environmental regulatory functions. The bill is part of our phase-two reforms of the Resource Management Act, which contribute to our six-point plan for a stronger economy. The bill does this by cutting red tape and regulations.

The establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority is yet another election promise fulfilled. It is part of the blue-green vision to grow the economy while protecting New Zealand’s natural environment. We are committed to protecting our environment; it is unique and it is crucial to New Zealand’s future. We have absolutely no truck with the ideas expressed at the time of the Falklands War by Margaret Thatcher, who observed: “It is exciting to have a real crisis on your hands, when you have spent half your political life dealing with humdrum issues like the environment.” That is certainly not our attitude.

The Government is committed to the importance of the environment for New Zealand’s future. I reiterate the fact that the Environmental Protection Authority is a strong and independent regulatory authority that will ensure that our environment is protected at a national level. I commend the bill to the House.

I picked up a copy of this bill, the Environmental Protection Authority Bill, a moment ago and I have to say that I was a little surprised. We are establishing the Environmental Protection Authority through this bill, but one of the objectives of the Environmental Protection Authority is not the protection of the environment. Is it not ironic that we are setting up the Environmental Protection Authority, which does not have as its goal the protection of the environment? I was really surprised to read that in the bill. The bill talks about contributing to the efficient, effective, and transparent management of the New Zealand environment, but there is no mention at all of protecting the environment. It enables us to meet our international obligations—once again, not protecting the environment at all. So why are we establishing an Environmental Protection Authority that does not set about to protect the environment? I am little surprised.

That is something that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be very proud of. He thought the best hospital in the National Health Service was one that had no patients. Here we have the Environmental Protection Authority that does not set out to protect the environment—something, I am sure, Sir Humphrey Appleby would be very happy about. It is an absolute triumph for the bureaucracy that it is establishing a new bureaucracy that does not do what its title suggests it will do. But, having said that, Labour will support the bill. If this bill did what it purports to do, the protection of the environment is very worthwhile. There is much that is laudable in the overall objective of the bill.

However, we have some concerns, and I will be looking forward, as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, to hearing what people have to say when they have the opportunity to submit on this bill. I sincerely hope the committee will have sufficient time to do this bill justice. I hope that the select committee process will not be truncated, as the resolution put forward by the Minister when he read the first reading speech on this bill suggests it will be.

As David Shearer just pointed out, the Minister is trying to fast track his bill through the House. Therefore, how can we have any confidence that the bill, if enacted, will not then be used to fast track a whole lot of measures? It is certainly symbolic of the Government’s attitude, when it comes to environmental protection, that it is trying to fast track the bill through the House. I encourage the Government to just take a breath: make sure the select committee can hear submissions without being overly rushed, because there is no reason to overly rush this legislation. It is important that we get it right and that the select committee has the opportunity to hear submissions in full. It is important that members of Parliament have the opportunity to participate fully in the parliamentary process, which does not happen when the Government continually truncates the appropriate process.

I am concerned that the bill, if enacted, will be used to fast track certain projects. David Shearer mentioned the Waterview Connection, but there are many others. For example, this legislation could be used to fast track the new private prison at Wiri in South Auckland. It could be used to fast track certain oil and gas consenting and regulatory approvals, because it will take those functions away from local authorities and vest them with the Environmental Protection Authority. I have to say I have mixed views on that, because I recognise that in the consenting and regulation of offshore oil and gas operations there is a body of knowledge that resides within one local authority—that is, predominantly within the local authorities in Taranaki. If we move to seeing more widespread oil and gas exploration in other parts of the country, we will need to think about how we handle that. If all the expertise resides in the Taranaki area, and we end up exploring for oil and gas elsewhere, is it appropriate that the local authorities in those areas develop that expertise or is it more important for an Environmental Protection Authority to do so?

There could be some merit in the Environmental Protection Authority taking on those functions, but the feedback that I have had from around the industry is that there is actually a limited body of expertise out there. There will be some important transition issues that will need to be dealt with in regard to that. I have to say, overall, I do not have a huge amount of confidence in the Government’s track record when it comes to protecting the environment, and even less confidence in its track record in trying to pass the Environmental Protection Authority Bill, which does not actually set out to protect the environment.

What have we seen from the Government since it has been elected? We have seen a plan to try to mine the national parks. We have seen the Government water down the emissions trading scheme. We have seen it repeal the biofuel sales obligation, which would have allowed a sustainable biofuels industry to be established in this country. That is—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment agrees.

I do not necessarily agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in that particular area. We have seen the Government repeal the restriction on new baseload electricity generation from non-renewable sources, such as coal and gas. These are all things that the Government has done in the short period of time that it has been in office, which in my view suggests that far from protecting the environment the Government is going in the other direction. It has scrapped fuel economy standards for car vehicles. Gerry Brownlee has resisted any moves to have a common standard for smart metering in our electricity meters. These are all things that the Government could do that would significantly enhance our environmental protection, yet this Government is going the other way and walking away from those things.

I want to talk now about where certain functions will reside in the rearrangement of the Government agencies that this bill involves. The bill refocuses the Ministry for the Environment on policy and moves the Environmental Protection Authority to a role where it administers regulations, and then it places the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as the overall systems auditor and monitoring agency for environmental standards in New Zealand.

When it comes to the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, one of the things we need to be very mindful of is the need to protect the independence of the commissioner. I am concerned that placing all of the focus of auditing and reporting on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment could compromise that. There will still be a role for the ministry and for the Environmental Protection Authority in ensuring that the standards are set and that the data the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment will need for adequate reporting is collected. I do not think that it should be the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to be involved at that operational level of ensuring that the data required is collected. That involves a certain administrative burden and it would require the commissioner to become, if you like, part of the governing machinery. If we want an independent watchdog, then forcing the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to become involved at that level of routine Government administration will seriously compromise that.

One of the things that I would like to see is either the Ministry for the Environment or the Environmental Protection Authority—and it probably rests mostly with the Ministry for the Environment, in the new scheme of things—having a role in establishing the standards for environmental data collection and the enforcement of those standards, so that when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment does the reporting, this Parliament will hopefully, under another piece of legislation in due course, require of them that the data and the quality information will be available. The biggest impediment to quality environmental reporting at the current point in time is that the data and the quality information simply do not exist.

By way of summary, I think that this bill is worthy of significant consideration by the select committee. It is important that the public have the opportunity to have a say on it, and that people with relevant expertise have the opportunity to have a say on it. I suspect that one of the first things they may want to consider—

💬 Hon Member: We want to vote!

—there are still 3 whole minutes to go—is whether in the functions of the Environmental Protection Authority it might be prudent to list “protection of the environment” as something that the Environmental Protection Authority might actually want to have within its ambit. Maybe protecting the environment, rather than simply contributing to efficient, effective, and transparent management of the environment, could be something it would want to think about. That has to be a very novel idea for an agency called the Environmental Protection Authority!

Overall, let us hear what the select committee has to say. I urge the Government to give the select committee adequate opportunity to have a proper hearing on this particular bill rather than, once again, try to truncate the process and rush it through.

I am very pleased to make a short but hopefully punchy call on the Environmental Protection Authority Bill.

The bill is about the environment and it is about better decision-making in terms of the environment. In my view it is very important legislation; it is part of a wider package. We have already passed the first phase, the Resource Management Act reforms. We are seeing wonderful progress in terms of the Resource Management Act reforms with faster consenting across the country. This is excellent legislation and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Environmental Protection Agency bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 March 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I put that question, I will put the question on the amendment moved by Charles Chauvel.