Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill

In rising to speak to the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill, I just acknowledge the member Meka Whaitiri, who is bringing this bill to the House in its second reading—a bill that I will not be supporting. You will have to bear with me; it is not often, I suppose, as a Government MP that I get to oppose a bill, so I am going to have to brush up on the negativity and cynicism that the Opposition does so well. So you will have to bear with me.

When I look at this bill there is not much to it. Basically, it is about inserting the word “protection”, for protecting the environment, but in the general policy statement it does say: “When the Act was passed, the stated objective of the Environmental Protection Authority contained an important oversight in that it did not actually require the protection of the environment as part of the Authority’s role. This Bill corrects that defect.” I will be arguing today in my call that there was no omission; there was no defect. Very much like a family saloon—you see the detail and realise that it has got the grunt that you need to drive forward when you actually pop the hood—it is very much like that when you look at things like the Environmental Protection Authority and understand its statement of intent and mission statement.

It clearly states, if I read from the departmental report: “The Ministry notes that the EPA’s Statement of Intent 2014-18 includes the mission ‘To protect people and the environment’. Protection is also present in the [mission statement]: ‘We deliver robust, objective decisions and ensure compliance with rules to protect people and the environment’.” So there in the statement of intent, in the mission statement, there is the reference to protecting the environment. I will not argue about the intent of this bill—of course we should be looking to protect the environment. What I would argue is actually that it is intrinsic to being a New Zealander. New Zealanders are passionate about the environment and—unlike a party to my right, which thinks only it protects the environment—I would argue that every New Zealander believes in the environment and actively pursues ways of protecting it, because our clean, green image of New Zealand is something that makes us a country that sticks out in the world.

When you look at the Bluegreen movement in the National Party, it is about managing the economy sustainably and managing the environment. There will be many young Kiwis this year who will take off to do their OE. I was one of them several years ago. And when they go out and expand their world view, they will understand the connection between countries that have developed their economies—which are the ones that go and seek to protect their environment the most—and the very strong link between open, vibrant economies, and ones that protect their environment. That is what we need to support.

It is interesting: when we look at one of the submitters around this legislation, Federated Farmers, they outlined how this bill would be in conflict with the Resource Management Act. “When acting under the RMA, the EPA needs to appropriately balance social, economic, and cultural well-being with environmental protection, as required by Section 5 of the RMA. Requiring the EPA to protect, maintain or enhance the environment will be prejudicial to this balancing of wellbeings.” I suppose we need to focus on that, because it is balancing those competing objectives: social, environmental, and economic as well. When we introduce a bill, we need to understand what some of its possibly unintended consequences are.

We know through some of those submissions and from what we heard from the advisers that this bill, if it is passed into legislation, would result in an increase in costs and in time around decision making, as well as an increase in the likelihood of litigation with the ambiguity of inserting the word “protection”. So we need to make sure that a bill is fit for purpose, and, unfortunately, I do not agree that this bill is fit for purpose.

One thing that stuck out when we went through the select committee process—because this bill did receive 206 submissions, which, granted, is a fair number, a range of views; but when you have a bill kind of this size there is not much to it—was that people were not submitting clause by clause. They were just submitting broadly about the overall effect. Of course, when it says “protect the environment” that says what is on the tin and I can see why people made the submissions that they did. But, actually, when you scratch the surface or you lift that bonnet to look at what is actually in the Environmental Protection Authority Act, it is actually interesting. The Local Government and Environment Committee clearly states: “the Act notes that the authority must observe the environmental purposes and objectives in the other Acts it fully or partly administers. These Acts are the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act 1988, Resource Management Act 1991, Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996, Climate Change Response Act 2002, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects Act) 2012.” Clearly, by looking at all those Acts that the Environmental Protection Authority Act already partly or fully administers, it does protect the environment already.

Coming back to that claim that this bill unfortunately had no mission and was not correct by not putting the word “protect” in—I think we need to refute that. The committee clearly states that “the environmental purposes and objectives set out in these Acts make it clear that the authority must strive to protect the environment.” So, overall, we clearly support the intent of this bill around protecting the environment, but when we look at the detail we understand that the Environmental Protection Authority is already set up—through its mission statement, its statement of intent, and the Acts that it partially or fully administers—to protect the environment. Unfortunately, if this bill was to pass, all it is going to cause is an increase in costs to the Environmental Protection Authority and to submitters, an increase in the time it takes for consenting, and a lot of ambiguity in litigation. That is why I do not support this bill. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise to speak in favour of this eminently sensible bill, which simply seeks to do the absolute obvious and empower the Environmental Protection Authority to “protect, maintain, and enhance New Zealand’s environment”. People watching at home could be forgiven for assuming that the Environmental Protection Authority would already have that mandate to protect our environment—it is a very misleading title, actually. I would like to congratulate my Labour colleague Meka Whaitiri on bringing this bill to the House. It is simple, it is short, and it makes perfect sense.

We have heard a lot of seemingly reasonable arguments against the bill from National Party members tonight, but I have to say that if you really believe in protecting the environment, then your actions speak louder than words. It is entirely fitting, and very predictable that this National Government’s members on the Local Government and Environment Committee would vote by majority to ignore the 97 percent of public submissions in support of this very sensible bill. I do not say that lightly. I do not say that because I am biased against the National Party. I say that because after 8 years of the National Party being in Government, it is obvious that it will not step up and protect the environment. It simply focuses on rhetoric and “greenwashing”. I completely understand that there are members in the National Party who genuinely care about the environment and want to protect it, but the reality of this Government’s policies is that it does not protect the environment—it does not protect the environment.

Here is a good example of the National Government trying to talk up its green credibility recently. I am sure that the transport Minister, Simon Bridges, actually wants to support electric vehicles in this country, and I am sure there are members sitting over there right now who would like to see more electric vehicles on our roads. But very soon we are going to have more photos of Simon Bridges with electric charging stations—which have not been funded by this Government; they have been funded by private industry—than we will have electric vehicles on our roads. This is because the Government has not implemented any policies to support electric vehicles in New Zealand, to make them more affordable and attractive for businesses and households. It has not supported a single policy. Nissan has now pulled the most affordable electric vehicle on the market, the Leaf, from New Zealand because there is not a sufficient market for it, because there is not sufficient Government policy.

Matt Doocey just said in his speech—I think; this is what I understood him to be saying—that we need to not protect our environment in order to grow the economy so that we can protect the environment. It makes perfect sense, does it not? No, actually, it does not make any sense whatsoever.

We in the Green Party know that our competitive advantage in the world is our pristine natural environment. We love our pristine natural environment—we want to protect it. Protecting it is not bad for the economy. It does not cost businesses unnecessarily; it is actually something that we can do to build our brand and sell our goods overseas. Another good example of how the National Party has missed this opportunity was in its bet on high-volume, low-value commodities that we were going to sell to the rest of the world, and we were thus going to somehow increase the value of our exports. That was its economic strategy, and it is now in tatters as we see commodity prices have crashed—in particular, dairy prices.

It is such a shame, because if the National Party had taken advantage of our environmental brand in the world and said that New Zealand’s competitive advantage is not going to be producing tonnes and tonnes of cheap milk powder but is going to be selling high-value, clean, green, and safe dairy products to the world—if we had done that, we would not be in the hole that we are in right now, because the price for organic milk is 5 to 6 times higher than the price for milk powder. We could have protected our waterways, protected our soil, and protected our people, and we would be better off economically for doing so. That is the green economic vision that the Green Party stands for—a real economic vision, not just talk from the National Government.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, anei te mihi atu ki a koe otirā, ki Te Whare. Kai te pīrangi au ki te whakanuia i tēnei o ngā tuahine i haria mai tēnei pire ki Te Whare. I a mātau i te pānuitanga tuatahi, i a mātau e noho nei e whakaaro ana, anā, ko ēnei te take ka taea e mātau te tautoko i tētahi pire nui ki a tātau. Koirā tā mātāu whakaaro tuatahi! Hoi anō rā, kua tae ki tēnei wā, e ai ki Te Pāti Māori kua āta tirohia te pire, kua āta tirohia ngā pire kai tōna taha, kua āta whakarongo ki ngā kōrero o ngā iwi, me ngā rōia i tēnei wā, koinei te take kāre e taea te whakaae, kai te whakamārama au ki a tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I acknowledge you, but also, at the same time, the House. I want to commend this one of the sister colleagues for bringing this bill to the House. At the first reading, and as we sat here thinking and listening, we concluded that there are the reasons why we are able to support a bill that is important to us. That is what we thought at first. However, we have come to this moment, and according to the Māori Party viewpoint, having now examined the bill and associated bills sitting alongside it carefully, and having listened to advice from the tribes and lawyers, this is the reason why we are not able agree to it now. I am explaining to all of us.]

I want to assure Meka Whaitiri, e te tuahine, that the decision that we have come to has been a decision that we have made and have had great debate about within the Māori Party, and it is in no way influenced by the Government in this instance. The reason that we have come to this decision is that we feel there are a number of issues with the Environmental Protection Authority, and this legislation, in and of itself, is not going to fix and address those issues. We have been focusing on how we can protect the environment through the Resource Management Act decisions and the negotiations that are ongoing, right now, with the Minister involved.

Kaitiakitanga is a fundamental policy and kaupapa of the party. As Māori—and the reason, I think, that my colleague has brought this bill to the House—we have a fundamental belief in looking after our environment, which is what we would expect that the Environmental Protection Authority would be doing. However, for this bill in and of itself to change some wording, I do not believe—and we are of the opinion—will go far enough to ensure that that happens. So we look to the other bills that surround it, which have some effect in this area. For us, the concentration is on the Resource Management Act.

We normally support the introduction of bills to first reading so that submitters can come, and I have carefully read the submissions and the Local Government and Environment Committee’s report. I have taken note of the minority views of both the Greens and the Labour Party in the determination that they have come to. I want to assure you that this is not a decision that we make easily, though we have been to the Minister to find other ways in which we can support the intent of what my colleague has brought to the House through things like the statement of intent, the regulations, and the directions being given to the Environmental Protection Authority. I think that, actually, the whole area needs some more stringent review, and that is something that we will be advocating for, to expand on the intent of what is happening here.

Let us have a look at it. The Environmental Protection Authority, among other functions, regulates six other pieces of legislation—and those are the other pieces that we have looked into—that all have their own objectives. One of its functions is to manage the processing of proposals determined as nationally significant under the Resource Management Act, and that is what we have chosen to put our efforts into. In this instance, the Resource Management Act has clearly stated purposes and principles under Part 2 of the Act.

Some of the unintended consequences that we feel this bill may have, with each of the other six Acts having their own principles and objectives, are in what the amendment will do to the Environmental Protection Authority Act and how all that legislation fits together. There is not time, in the short call that I have, to expand on this more, though I am happy to work with the member and with the Minister to see how we can grow the protection aspect of the Environmental Protection Authority with those other six pieces of legislation, including the Resource Management Act, to ensure that, on balance, environment is not left to suffer while economic development flourishes. Kia ora.

Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee, which I am privileged to be a member of, recommended by majority that this bill not be passed. Members on this side of the House took the view during the first reading of this bill that the bill was unnecessary and should not proceed to the select committee. This House decided, though, that it would, in fact, proceed to the select committee, and I believe that was an unfortunate decision, because participating in this select committee process only made it clearer that this bill was unnecessary.

I do want to acknowledge the member who put this bill forward. As far as I can tell, Meka Whaitiri had the best of intentions in putting this bill into the ballot. She appears to have genuinely thought that these seven extra words would somehow enable the Environmental Protection Authority to more effectively carry out its role of protecting the environment, but, unfortunately, they do not—the evidence we received in the select committee clearly told us that.

When Meka Whaitiri introduced this bill in the first reading, she suggested that there had been some sort of mistake when the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011 was passed, and that the original legislation was supposed to contain the words “protects, maintains, and enhances New Zealand’s environment” but, somehow, someone had forgotten to put them in. In fact, the preamble of this bill also includes this claim, that leaving these words out was somehow an important oversight. I would have expected that for an assertion like that to be included in the preamble of the member’s bill, the member would have done her research and actually been sure that it was valid.

Neither I nor Meka Whaitiri were in this House when the Environmental Protection Authority legislation was passed, but I have done my research, and it is clear that the clause she has suggested was never needed in the bill, and it is really at odds with the reason we have an arm’s-length environmental regulator like the Environmental Protection Authority. The Environmental Protection Authority was set up to carry out functions that are set out in a number of the other Acts. The primary Act does set out some broad functions and objectives, but I would suggest that the most important objective is the one that states that the Environmental Protection Authority must act in a way that furthers the objectives or purposes stated in the Act, which sets out the particular functions it is carrying out. In this way, the Environmental Protection Authority derives its objectives from a number of different Acts, rather than just the Environmental Protection Authority Act.

So what are these Acts? My colleague Marama Fox actually highlighted some of them. I want to go through and highlight them because I think these are a very important part of why this side of the House disagrees with this bill. First of all, we have the Resource Management Act 1991, and when we look at the purpose clause—this is also reflected in the legislation protecting the exclusive economic zone—one of the purposes in that Act refers to the “protection of natural and physical resources”. It is the protection of natural and physical resources. It goes on to talk about safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of certain resources and avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment. It sounds to me like it is about the protection of the environment.

Then we have the Climate Change Response Act 2002. This Act is focused on one particular aspect of environmental management. It is about the prevention of climate change through reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose statement of the Act is comprehensive, but it could be summed up as enabling New Zealand to meet its international obligations to combat climate change. If combating climate change is not protecting the environment, then I am not sure what the members opposite think it is. Is the addition of another seven words requiring the protection of the environment going to somehow change how the Environmental Protection Authority administers its duties under the Climate Change Response Act 2002? I do not think so—I do not think so.

The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 states that the purpose of this Act is to protect the environment and its health and safety. It is about the health and safety of the people and the communities by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms. Maybe the problem here is that the words “maintains and enhances” are missing. When the Environmental Protection Authority carries out its duties under the Act, is Meka Whaitiri concerned that it might attempt only to protect the environment, rather than also enhancing and maintaining it? Or is the purpose set out in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 exactly fit for purpose already? It is to protect the environment from dangers posed by these substances and organisms.

There is the Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996, which gives its purpose as being to help protect human health and the environment. Once more, what is missing here? Nothing. The purpose of the Environmental Protection Authority is clear. It is in its name, but it is also in the legislation that the authority derives its powers from. If the purpose statements in these pieces of legislation are not sufficient to ensure that the authority protects the environment, why has Labour only just discovered this deficiency?

The Environmental Protection Authority was established by the National Government to be an arm’s length regulator of environmental standards. By the very nature of the functions it carries out, the protection of the environment is at the core of what the authority does. Adding seven words that supposedly make the difference between the authority protecting the environment or not sounds noble. It sounds noble and, at first glance, it might make sense. I am not surprised that a number of people submitted saying that, actually, they thought it made sense for the authority to protect the environment, but having looked into the purpose of the authority and the legislation from which it draws its functions, it is clear to me that the protection of the environment is already clearly spelt out in each of the authority’s functions.

This bill is definitely unnecessary, and could potentially undermine the authority’s role as an arm’s length regulator. I once again acknowledge tuahine Meka Whaitiri in bringing this bill to the House. I wish I could acknowledge the work of the member and her colleagues on the select committee, but it is hard to be complimentary about a party that is so determined to ignore the advice of officials that its members will sit in the select committee, listen to the experts’ advice, but still push ahead with a bill the experts have advised is unnecessary. E mea atu ki a koe, kia ora. [I say to you, thank you.]

It is a pleasure to take a call. I too would like to acknowledge the work of Meka Whaitiri in bringing this bill to the House. I would also like to address some of the comments that the last speaker, Nuk Korako, has made, those being lastly about members who sit there and ignore the advice of officials. I would like to have a little bit of a conversation about members who sit there and ignore, time and time again, submitters who come with a great deal of expertise. Their words simply fall on deaf ears. We had a large number of submissions, and they were ignored, they were ridiculed, and they were not taken seriously. I think that that is far more shameful in terms of the conduct of members at the select committee.

Never before have seven words produced such hysteria within the Government, in its reaction to this bill. Simply trying to insert into the Environmental Protection Authority’s legislation the fact that it should protect the environment—you would think that Meka had introduced a bill saying we should do something really bad, something really out there, rather than put a purpose clause in legislation saying that the entire Environmental Protection Authority should have as its purpose the protection of the environment.

The members of the Government have been all over the place in terms of why it is they are going to oppose this bill. The last speaker’s logic seemed to be that we do not need to put it in there because other Acts say that the Environmental Protection Authority should protect the environment and, therefore, we should not put the purpose clause into the Environmental Protection Authority Act. Actually, that just makes absolutely no sense.

Mr Doocey, in his contribution, said that what we should do is lift the hood on the Environmental Protection Authority and have a look at what is happening under the hood. Well, I would like to lift the hood, and I would like to expose the burnt-out engine that this Government has neglected. When the Environmental Protection Authority came to the Local Government and Environment Committee in February of this year, its chair, Kerry Prendergast, very clearly said that it was underfunded, not getting the resources it needed, and that it could not fulfil its functions. That is the state of the engine that Mr Doocey is talking about. So when the Government members cry crocodile tears and talk about the Bluegreens and their care for the environment, the National Government is consistently underfunding the agency that is charged with being an environmental watchdog in this country. Their words have no basis in belief.

One of the key arms of the authority came and said that it simply does not have enough money to do its job. What we had was Ms Prendergast telling the Local Government and Environment Committee that the Environmental Protection Authority had never received permanent funding for its exclusive economic zone functions, which range from approving and monitoring offshore exploration wells through to approving burials at sea. So in terms of the very function that those members opposite are arguing is about balancing the environment and the economy, they are underfunding the agency charged with doing that job, not giving the resources to that agency that it needs. The authority’s chair fronted up to the select committee and made it clear that it is strapped for cash and unable to do the job. She went on to say that 3 years of discussion have not changed the situation, and the resulting uncertainty over funding raises questions about the long-term sustainability of the exclusive economic zone function and the exclusive economic zone more generally.

These are very worrying words, and for the Government to claim that it does have the interests of the environment at heart is absolutely alarming. When the Government talks about the range of agencies that the Environmental Protection Authority has some authority over, and why it does not need to put the fact that it needs to have the environment as one of its considerations—let us consider some of those other responsibilities it has, under other pieces of principal legislation. Ms Prendergast went on to say that because of the funding shortfall some activities, such as public education about environmental risk, had to be cut back. The Environmental Protection Authority simply was not able to fulfil them.

Other people who came from the Environmental Protection Authority and came before the select committee said that the huge cost of considering the safety of potentially hazardous chemicals had seen the agency prune the list of chemicals it needed to investigate to 30. The agency that is put in charge of investigating the hazards that various chemicals pose to us in this country is being underfunded, and that agency is telling the parliamentary select committee that it is unable to fulfil that function.

This is serious; this is not something that we take lightly. This Government has allocated enough money to the Environmental Protection Authority that it can budget $300,000 a year for investigating hazardous chemicals. I would like to think, when I am living my life, that, actually, a bit more resource was being put into the fact that we were not all being poisoned. I would have thought that was a reasonably core function of Government. Let us compare that with the recent organic phosphate reassessment, which cost $1.2 million. That is for one chemical to be investigated—$1.2 million was needed to do that. Yet this Government sees fit, within its Budget allocations, to give the Environmental Protection Authority only enough to allocate $300,000.

For that Government to then say that it has the interests of the environment at heart and that you do not need to put the fact that we need to protect the environment in the purpose clause simply rings hollow. If you compare New Zealand with a country such as Canada, which spends several hundred million dollars on the assessment of 14,000 chemicals, our Government is putting us at risk by the fact that it is not allowing our agency, which wants to do this job and which comes before the select committee and says that it needs to do this job for the safety of the environment and for the health of New Zealanders more generally—but this Government will not do it.

It is putting not only our people and our environment at risk, but also our economy. For agriculture, knowing about hazardous chemicals and various biochemicals is incredibly important. The Government members may scoff, but this is what the Environmental Protection Authority came to the select committee and said. It said this in the same breath as it said that for 3 years it had been asking this Government for additional funding but it has yet to get it, and it is not able to fulfil its function. What was entirely clear throughout the whole examination of the Environmental Protection Authority at the select committee was that it was underfunded at the very time when the need for New Zealand to step up its environmental work was taking hold.

When this Government says that we do not need to put the environment into the purpose clause of the Environmental Protection Authority legislation because “Trust us, we’ve got the best interests of the environment at heart.”, there is very clear evidence that, no, it does not. When it comes to funding the agencies that need to do that, it simply is not there. Its commitment to the environment is nothing more than hollow words. If it really is committed, then it can stump up and show that with evidence, rather than making pretty little speeches in the House. Thank you.

I rise in opposition, obviously, to the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill. In doing so, I acknowledge Ms Whaitiri. I acknowledge her conservation ethic; it is of good intention—how she brought this bill to the House—but, obviously, from this side we believe it to be misguided.

It is with some pleasure that I rise and take this call to round off this debate. I have already taken a call on the previous committee on which I sat—the Government Administration Committee. I leave that with sadness, I leave my peers there. But I now join the Local Government and Environment Committee team. I am very much looking forward to some robust debate under the chairmanship of Mr Scott Simpson, although he did scare me with stories of baking rosters. I do not really think that my baking is a way to career advancement. But, nevertheless, I am on that committee, and I am very pleased to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee, because, of course, I have a strong interest in the environment.

That was the pathway to how I entered into politics—it was through the blue-green movement of the National Party that I came to be where I am today. The Bluegreens—the blue-green caucus, the blue-green policy advisory group of the National Party—believe in a balance between the use of environment and the protection of environment. That balance is needed to advance not only an environmental cause but also an economic cause, to create jobs and create wealth for our people.

This bill in particular is in respect of the Environmental Protection Authority, and the bill’s sponsor believes that we need to insert the words “to protect and maintain and enhance New Zealand’s environment” into the legislation that governs the Environmental Protection Authority. This is not needed, because the authority’s mission statement is clearly set out, and it is already doing that job. But, primarily, the Environmental Protection Authority is at arm’s length from the Government and was set up on purpose to oversee large infrastructure projects of national significance. It was put in place because the Resource Management Act had gone too far.

The Resource Management Act in 1991 was revolutionary. It was effects-driven, and that is where assessment of different activities in our communities should take place—on an effects-based principle. But it has gone too far, it has ballooned out and, hence, through our phases of reforms, the Environmental Protection Authority was put in place to oversee projects of national significance, because they were getting bottlenecked. These projects were bottlenecking at the local government level, and it was just stifling economic development. We on this side of the House are not interested in raping and pillaging our environment. We know that our environment is a key to providing jobs and wealth but we also need to rely on that environment and protect it.

Let us put that into context with, say, the other pieces of legislation that are in place that create that all-round environmental protection in New Zealand. If you look at Acts on the other side—the more protectionism-type Acts, like the Conservation Act—then we are talking about different styles of management; recreational opportunities spectrum is what we use. Then we have designated areas such as wilderness areas where there is no development allowed. That allows us to look at New Zealand as a whole and manage different areas in a way that creates a hierarchy of levels of protectionism and, in respect of the Resource Management Act, that balance must be afforded. So to add these words into the Environmental Protection Authority’s mandate is not a good idea and we need to maintain that balance.