Simpson Scott: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 24 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4777. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I rise to speak in this first reading debate on the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill in the name of Meka Whaitiri. I want at the outset to congratulate the member. It is always an honour I think to have a member’s bill drawn from the ballot. It is literally a lottery so therefore not only is it an honour but it involves a degree of luck and good fortuneas well. Although this is a piece of good fortune that has befallen that member the bill itself is one that I do have some problems with. I want to spend just a few minutes speaking to those issues and questions that I have with the bill as it is proposed by Meka Whaitiri and on where I think some of the issues are that would prevent me and the National Party from supporting it in its current form.The addition of extra objectives into the principal Act is in my view completely unnecessary. The reason for that is simply that the principal Act sets up and creates the Environmental Protection Authority. This is an authority that was created during the first term of this National Government which was done with the purpose of providing an operational organisation that would ensure that arm’s-length policy would be determined separately from the politicisation of us mere politicians. I contend in fact that if this bill were to be passed by the House the inclusion of the seven small words that the sponsoring member has at the basis and the heart of this bill would actually be detrimental and would achieve a negative result and the exact reverse result of the one that she is seeking to achieve. I think that that of itself is a fatal flaw in this bill.The Environmental Protection Authority was set up as I said to be an arm’s-length operational entity. It is my view that this amendment has the potential to turn the agency and impinge upon its operational integrity and independence. I do not think that that ultimately serves the objectives that the member is seeking to achieve in terms of the amendment to the principal Act that she is proposing in this bill. The operational independence and credibility of the Environmental Protection Authority is at the very heart of that legislation. It is at the very heart of what it was designed to do. It was established precisely so that the difficult decisions could be taken independently and without the involvement of us mere politicians. Policy agencies operate best when there is less dependence on direction of that sort and the Environmental Protection Authority in my view absolutely does not need to move in that direction. That would be without doubt I think the potential impact if this bill were to proceed through the House.The amendment that is being proposed would have a significant impact on the way that the Environmental Protection Authority carries out the existing functions that it is tasked to achieve. I note that there has been media commentary which the member spoke about in this morning’s media. I am not aware of that; I choose to listen to far more uplifting and enlightening morning radio than the member does so I missed the commentary this morning. But I suspect without having heard that media commentary that if there are questions from staff members as to their role and the function that they have or that the agency that employs them has then that is essentially an employment matter and one that I think that the chief executive of the organisation should properly address. The principal Act defines the role of the Environmental Protection Authority in very clear and precise terms. That role in my view is completely unequivocal and a role and a function that is understood I think by the vast majority of people who come into contact with the agency the vast majority of its employees and its senior management team. That there may be some employees who are confused about their role I think of itself is not a good reason to muck around with the objective provisions of the legislation and amend the principal Act.There are functions to provide the assurances and the goals that the member seeks to achieve in this bill in other pieces of legislation. That is the way that the legislation has been particularly constructed. That is the way that it has been formatted: so that there are other pieces of legislation such as the Resource Management Act and the Climate Change Response Act for example which provide exactly the kind of definitional functionality that the member is seeking from this bill. I am not arguing that the objectives that she is seeking are wrong or invalid; this is just the wrong place for them. Those objectives are well covered in other pieces of legislation that have been designed specifically for that purpose.Although there is not a proposal to add any additional functions into section 13 of the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011 this amendment as it is being proposed would still significantly in my view affect the way that the Environmental Protection Authority carries out its existing statutory functions and obligations. The Government set this organisation up as part of its first-phase Resource Management Act reforms and the principal legislation was passed back in 2011. As members will know very clearly it is the plan and proposal of the Government to introduce second-phase Resource Management Act reforms later this year. I know that the Minister for the Environment the Hon Nick Smith is working diligently and hard to achieve that and as we speak I suspect is working hard to seek cross-party support for the much-needed Resource Management Act phase two reforms which will make that piece of legislation which is the cornerstone piece of legislation in this area a more functional and worthwhile piece of law that will provide much of the confidence and support that our environment needs going forward.As I said the amendment as it is being suggested by Meka Whaitiri would in my view change the very purpose of the Environmental Protection Authority. It would change it in a way that goes well beyond the original purposes of the principal Act and the bill does nothing to actually enhance the work of the agency. In fact in my view it has potential to detract from and actually diminish the work of the agency. It has the potential to effectively undermine the operational effectiveness of the agency. The result of this amendment bill could actually be that the Environmental Protection Authority is required to apply a whole new set of tests to its functionality and that would translate to a whole range of new duties a whole definitional new menu of objectives that in fact would detract from the effectiveness of the agency in its current form. I do not think that that necessarily provides any net benefit in terms of protection to our environment or the measurement of our environmental standards.I do have clear difficulties with this bill. It is well intentioned I know. I think the member is well intentioned; I think she brings to the House a piece of legislation that is thoughtful.Debate interrupted.