Environmental Protection Authority Bill

I would like to be the first to congratulate Ross Robertson on reassuming the position of Assistant Speaker. My colleague Grant Robertson was saying how proud he is to be related to Ross and to bear the same name. I think in their quieter moments together, he actually calls him uncle. I offer my congratulations to Ross.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek just a small matter of clarification. Although I have great respect for my colleague Ross Robertson, I am not related to him.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The House has departed from the Standing Orders considerably in the last few minutes, but let us return to our Standing Orders.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is true that we can choose our friends, but we cannot choose our relations.

We were talking about the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. When the debate was interrupted last Thursday, I had just finished congratulating my colleague Stuart Nash on an eloquent, detailed, and well-thought-out speech. I congratulate him again on that speech.

The second point I had made was that Sue Kedgley from the Green Party had said that this bill is full of double-speak. One of the areas where the Environmental Protection Authority Bill has double-speak is in its title. We would expect an environmental protection authority to have in its mission statement or its vision some sort of statement that it was there to protect the environment. The truth is that such a statement does not exist. In fact, the Environmental Protection Authority’s objectives are inadequate. They do not expressly require the Environmental Protection Authority to protect the environment, at all. Instead, as the bill is currently worded, the objective of the Environmental Protection Authority is to “undertake its functions in a way that—(a) contributes to the efficient, effective, and transparent management of New Zealand’s environment and natural and physical resources;”. There is nothing in that clause about the authority actually protecting the environment, which is why I agree with Sue Kedgley when she says that the bill is full of double-speak.

Last night I was at a community meeting in Wellsford, which is north of Auckland. The reason for the meeting was the Kaipara turbine decision. Also raised at the meeting was the issue of the Raukūmara situation whereby, according to many Māori, the marine environment is under attack. I raise the fact that in the bill there is no provision for the Treaty of Waitangi. I wonder—and I ask the Māori Party—why the Māori Party has allowed the bill to go ahead without any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. Māori Party members stand in the House and claim over and over again that they speak for our people—for the Māori people. I wonder why I am standing here as a Māori member of a mainstream party, the Labour Party, and I am the only one asking where the reference to the Treaty of Waitangi is. What has happened so that the Māori Party members have forgotten to include reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in the bill? Why has Hone Harawira, who says he is the independent voice of Te Tai Tokerau, not yet taken a call and asked where the references in the Environmental Protection Authority Bill to the Treaty of Waitangi are? If there was reference to the Treaty of Waitangi and if there was concern for Māori issues, we probably would not have the situation we have off the East Coast of the North Island, where Ngāti Porou and Te Whānau-a-Apanui are protesting that their concerns regarding the marine environment have not been heard.

The bill “makes provision for a Māori Advisory Committee, to be appointed by the EPA board, to provide advice to the EPA from a Māori perspective on matters relating to policy, process, and decision-making.” If the Government is genuinely concerned about the Māori perspective on matters relating to policy and process, I suggest that it meet with whānau and hapū in kanohi ki te kanohi—face-to-face—hui. The Government would no doubt be told the perspective of each whānau and hapū in relation to environmental matters.

Each hapū and iwi has spent a number of years developing environmental plans. Those environmental plans spell out exactly what Māori want for their environment. Face-to-face consultation, meetings, and discussions with whānau and hapū are needed, rather than a Māori advisory committee. I ask what the people in a committee that is brought together from all parts of the country—I am not quite sure how many people would be on the advisory committee; maybe there would be half a dozen—know about issues relating to, say, the Raukūmara Basin, the Northland Basin, the Reinga Basin off the north-western coast, or even the Puhi Puhi Valley in the north. There are real concerns by Ngāti Wai and Ngāti Hau as to the impact in that valley of what the Government intends in terms of mining and seismic surveying and all those sorts of issues. I say to the Government that it needs to meet and have face-to-face hui with whānau and hapū so that the Government knows what they want.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: They don’t turn up.

The Minister is calling out. I go back in the bill to where it states: “the EPA is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to the efficient, effective, and transparent management of New Zealand’s environment,”. Māori want transparency. When the Petrobras decision was made, the Minister of Energy and Resources’ idea of consultation and transparent communication with Ngāti Porou was to give Api Māhuika a phone call an hour before the media were informed that Petrobras had been given the contract for the oil exploration.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s not true.

The Minister says that it is not true, but that is how it was reported. Hopefully, the Environmental Protection Authority will live up to the transparent part of the consultation, because the Government’s track record in relation to the Raukūmara Basin and the letting of the oil exploration permit has not been transparent. That is why Ngāti Porou and Te Whānau-a-Apanui have had a flotilla off the East Coast with people jumping in the water, protesting, and trying to stop the seismic survey. They are concerned about what will happen to the marine environment. We all know the story. We saw what happened last year over in the Gulf of Mexico. That is the concern.

If Māori had the opportunity for decent consultation and were able to put their views out there, and if the Government met with the right people, then a lot of the angst would be alleviated. Instead, decisions are being made that Māori are not able to participate in fully. Their iwi and hapū environmental plans are not truly being taken into account. That is why there are Māori who are annoyed. Things are happening to them, and instead of their being engaged in the decision making they are standing up and saying that they do not accept it and they want to halt things. If they were fully involved in the decision making and were active participants in it, we would see a lot better progress than we are seeing now.

Labour opposes the bill and the proposed Environmental Protection Authority. At this stage I do not think there will be benefits to Māori. I say again that it is sad that the Māori Party members have not stood up and explained why they have not included Treaty of Waitangi clauses in the bill. It is an indictment on them. Kia ora.

The Māori Party is pleased to speak on the second reading of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. As Mr Davis said, the Māori Party has not spoken on this bill at second reading, but we are taking the opportunity to do so now; I thank Mr Davis for the invitation.

We welcome any consideration of the protection and preservation of our environment, as it is in keeping with our long-held traditions and values. Any steps that actively seek to take responsibility for caring for our environment are in themselves an expression of kaitiakitanga—the spiritual and cultural guardianship of Te Ao Mārama. Tangata whenua view such responsibility as an obligation and a privilege derived from whakapapa. We see that this bill provides the opportunity to breathe life into this responsibility, elevating many of the proposals of national significance and issues that were called in under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Consultation on this bill was undertaken with Māori and iwi leaders, and advisers through Te Puni Kōkiri. I was advised that the key themes to emerge from Māori consultation were that Māori representation on decision-making boards should be increased to at least two representatives, that there is support for the establishment of a statutory Māori advisory committee, that the committee should not be seen as a substitute for local iwi engagement, and that iwi had a preference that the Environmental Protection Authority be established as a stand-alone Crown agent. Each of these consultation themes could, of course, warrant further analysis and debate, and we hope to do so through the Committee stage of the bill.

We want to raise some issues for further consideration at this reading. As we understand it, the Environmental Protection Authority will undertake all of the functions currently performed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. It will also undertake administrative and registry functions for the emissions trading scheme under the Climate Change Response Act. These are weighty functions in their own right. But it might be important to also consider the opportunity for a wider mandate to provide advice on issues such as wider environmental management, the Resource Management Act, water, and suchlike.

What is unclear in this bill is precisely how the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority will affect Māori environmental committees, advisory boards, and governance groups currently operating. We are certainly interested in participating in further discussion with the Minister for the Environment about the nature of the Crown-Māori engagement processes on natural resources within the Ministry for the Environment, and how that engagement will input into the structure of the Environmental Protection Authority.

We note too that the Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended that the Environmental Protection Authority board members not be eligible for appointment to the Māori advisory committee, amending clause 17 in Part 2 by inserting new subclause (2A). We will be actively seeking comments from whānau, hapū, and iwi about this particular proposal. We understand that the Environmental Protection Authority board will consist of six to eight members, of which at least two members are required to have knowledge of, and experience in, the Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga Māori. The board is also required to appoint a statutory Māori advisory committee and to agree to its terms of reference.

I note our significant support for the appointment of Anake Goodall to the Environmental Protection Authority establishment board, which the Minister announced last month. Mr Goodall has acquired a very distinguished reputation as chief executive officer of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. He was chief executive officer from November 2007 until February this year, when he announced he was standing down—a huge loss to Ngāi Tahu. He has 35 years’ experience in management and organisational leadership, with particular strengths in environmental protection and enhancement, and community capacity building. The Māori Party is very pleased with this appointment and believes that through Anake’s membership on the board there will be considerable leadership from tangata whenua in the establishment phase.

We note also that establishment of the authority will not prevent Māori from having a direct relationship with the Crown on policy and other strategic matters related to natural resources. Of course, a complex and sophisticated policy methodology is already in place, which enables early policy engagement with iwi leaders and their advisers. This has been a key plank of Māori Party policy: that we encourage the Crown, and promote opportunities for Ministers, to seek advice from iwi leaders and their advisers across Government policy. We already see in place iwi advisers on fresh water from Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Waikato-Tainui, Ngāi Tahu, Te Arawa, and Whanganui. We see both technical and cultural advisers from whānau, hapū, and iwi across the resource management reforms and in the development of the national policy statement on biodiversity. We know that there is a Māori reference group on climate change and the emissions trading scheme, including representatives of iwi from 13 regions right across the country.

One piece of feedback we have received is that Māori found that they were able to engage more directly with Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao, as established under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The explanation is that direct engagement appears to have been enhanced by the fact of the committee’s independence from Government. Finally, throughout all there are legislative requirements to engage with Māori or to recognise the Treaty of Waitangi under such forms as the Resource Management Act or the Climate Change Response Act.

To make it entirely clear, I advise that the Māori Party will be introducing at the Committee stage a Supplementary Order Paper that will propose to include a Treaty clause in the legislation. Mr Davis has sort of taken our thunder by asking why we have not done that. In fact, we are doing so. We believe that the number of obligations that Government has with iwi groups is likely to increase over the next few years, and it is the absolute intention of the Māori Party to continue to monitor and actively advocate for this to occur.

In sum, therefore, there is already a very complex set of arrangements through which iwi have a direct relationship with the Crown on policy and other strategic matters related to natural resources. The question in our mind, however, is whether we can absolutely guarantee that this new Environmental Protection Authority Bill will improve and advance the quality of engagement currently available to iwi and Māori. The answer to this question will form the basis of our votes at subsequent stages of the bill, but for today, in recognition of the progress made to date, we are happy to support this bill at its second reading.

I congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, on your appointment this afternoon. I am proud to speak in support of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill, which creates a stand-alone Crown agent to perform environmental regulatory functions. I want to address a comment made by the previous Labour speaker, who made claims about consultation regarding the mining permit issued on the East Coast. I thought it was worth bringing the House’s attention to an issue that arose in 2008 under the previous Labour Government, when a seismic survey occurred with absolutely no consultation whatsoever. That raises the issue of a fairly strong double standard being shown by the gaggle opposite, which is rather frustrating when this bill balances economic growth with environmental protection.

In the interests of time I will speak specifically about one part of this bill, and that is what is made possible in terms of national consenting. In my own electorate of Taupō it has been exciting to see the very speedy process with regard to the Tauhara geothermal plant. The initial request was lodged on 19 February 2010, and in the very same year the board of inquiry issued its final report on 10 December. That is a fantastic result, and it reverses the disturbing trend under the previous Government, when the consenting process took longer than the construction process. That is the sort of roadblock that this Government is pushing ahead and dealing with, to make sure that we are able to get vital infrastructure projects up and running much more quickly, with consultation and with the involvement of the people in the community who need, and want, to have their say. I am very proud to support the second reading of this bill.

Amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority agreed to.

Bill read a second time.