Burns Brendon: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18509] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to pick up on Part 6 which is where we see a widening of the powers of the Minister for the Environment in respect of his capacity to call in matters that are deemed to be of national significance. I think we need to look through the 10 points in respect of how that power is to be given to the Minister. He is able to call in an issue and have the Environmental Protection Authority steamroll it through on any one of 10 points. Let us look through them. The Minister may call in an issue where it “has aroused widespread public concern or interest regarding its actual or likely effect on the environment (including the global environment)”. A very very broad sweep is encompassed in that particular proposed new subsection. The Minister may call in a project that “involves or is likely to involve significant use of natural and physical resources; or affects or is likely to affect a structure feature place or area of national significance; or affects or is likely to affect or is relevant to New Zealand’s international obligations to the global environment;”. 
I would like the Minister to give us some indication of the sorts of scenarios where he envisages he could use the sweeping powers we see here in Part 6. What is the risk to our international obligation to the global environment that would see him call in a project under Part 6? Is it in respect of climate change issues for instance? Is it in respect of a hazardous substance being released into the environment? Is it in respect of ozone issues? Clause 82 is very wide ranging. It goes on to state that a matter can be called in where it “results or is likely to result in or contribute to significant or irreversible changes to the environment (including the global environment);”. I cannot see any particular problem with that. Obviously if something very quickly led to a huge impact on the New Zealand environment or the world environment then we would want to see a Minister with the capacity to intervene rapidly. But I cannot see that a small agency like the Environmental Protection Authority which will probably have only around 20 relevant staff would have that capacity. The Minister can correct my estimation of the figures if I am wrong but we have already heard that the number of Environmental Risk Management Authority staff transferring across is of the order of 90. I think there are 20 or 30 staff in respect of addressing climate change. The balance of the staff is mostly in respect of this call-in unit that is provided for in this provision. I do get a sense that this clause is sort of the Trojan Horse of the bill and that it is there as a rapid agency for fast tracking particular projects. We as a Parliament deserve to hear from the Minister about the various scenarios he sees. 
Looking further through clause 82 we see that a call-in can be invoked where it is likely that an application may “involve technology processes or methods that are new to New Zealand and that may affect its environment;”. Obviously technology moves very very rapidly; there may be scenarios that the Minister has in mind in respect of that clause. This clause signals to me that basically the Minister wants the power to do a call-in no matter what the issue. If the Government wants to push something through very rapidly this clause seems to embody that power because it says that a call-in can happen where it “will assist the Crown in fulfilling its public health welfare security or safety obligations or functions;”. I have to suggest to the Minister that there is not much within the purview of Government that would not fall broadly under that remit. He might have to spell out education as the missing clause but if he needed the power to intervene this is the hold-it clause. When the Minister says that he needs the power to fulfil public health welfare security or safety obligations or functions I think he has the open door to an intervention on a proposal of national significance as he sees fit rather than it having any particular issue of real national significance. It is a very wide clause and I would like the Minister to indicate the sorts of circumstances that relate to that clause that he would like to see introduced. 
I have a particular disquiet about this part and it goes back to my past life as the editor of the paper in Marlborough at the time when the fast ferries started. It is very topical issue at the moment.