Environmental Protection Authority Bill

I will make a brief contribution on the question of the manner in which the bill is to be brought into force. The Minister has tabled—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It’s the title clause we are on.

Yes, the title and commencement, Mr Chairperson?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, just title—my apologies; it is clauses 1 and 2. It was my mistake. You are correct.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. First of all, dealing with the commencement, the Minister has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that will divide the bill into six different pieces of legislation. Each of these bills will be able to be brought into force by Order in Council, with the proviso that each of them has to be brought into force by 1 December 2012. That is my understanding of the scheme from the Supplementary Order Paper the Minister has put forward. We have not heard from the Minister on it, so I am doing my best to interpret the provisions that have been laid on the Table for the Committee.

I will make just a couple of points about this manner of proceeding. I know that the Regulations Review Committee wrote to the Local Government and Environment Committee on the manner the bill was originally going to be brought into force, which was, as I recall, to rely even more heavily on Order in Council provisions. The problem with this manner of legislating is that it confuses the responsibility of the Minister and the executive with the responsibilities of this House. We should be clear, on any occasion, whether we intend to bring a bill into force, and, if so, when. It is lazy to do it this way, frankly; it provides the officials with an excuse to delay. If there is a clear provision in the bill that states the date when part of the bill will come into force, then the administrative work that is required to be done by departments, by entities, and by the Minister and his office, will be done by that date. If it is not done by that date, then the Minister has to come back to this House, explain why, and propose amending legislation. But, as it is, this legislation is on the never-never but for a drop-dead date of some 18 months hence. I would like the Committee to reflect on whether that is a satisfactory way of proceeding. It is my submission that, particularly on legislation as important as this, it is not.

The second point I will make relates to the title. We have heard a great deal of debate during the Committee stage on whether this bill ought to merit the title the “Environmental Protection Authority Bill”. The nub of the concern is that nowhere in the objectives of the legislation, or in the functions, is there a requirement that this body be responsible for protecting New Zealand’s environment. Kennedy Graham moved an amendment earlier; I moved an amendment. The Government voted down both of those amendments. We have tried to make this an authority that would be worthy of its name. The Minister and his colleagues have rejected that attempt; I say shame on them for that. I say that in respect of the name that this bill bears, the authority that it will create will not live up to that name.

I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Environmental Protection Authority Bill, the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill (No 2), the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill, the Ozone Layer Protection Amendment Bill, and the Resource Management Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 240.