Simpson Scott: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9354. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill I rise—with some regret actually—to report back to the House that by majority the committee decided that this bill should not proceed. The reason for my regret is that I think the motivation of the member who has introduced this bill to the House Meka Whaitiri is probably well-intentioned but the process and the result that she seeks to achieve actually will not bring about the desired result that she is seeking.So when we went to the select committee we heard from a good number of submitters many of whom made their points eloquently and thoroughly but many of whom I think were under the impression that the principal Act the Environmental Protection Authority Act stands alone in itself as an island and a beacon for environmental protection in New Zealand. The reality is of course that this is part of a suite of environmental legislation that works together to ensure that our environmental objectives are achieved and that our environmental nature is preserved and enhanced and maintained. When an analysis of the bill is done and bit of a restatement of the history of its genesis is done it becomes very clear very quickly that the purpose that is being sought by the member introducing this bill does not really achieve the objectives that she seeks. So when Meka Whaitiri says that no ambiguity would exist well the reality is that if this was to take place the ambiguity would certainly exist.The Environmental Protection Authority has a role to play as a regulator of our environmental legislation and it has to balance a range of social economic and other objectives as well in order to protect our environment. The proposed amendment to this bill would in fact adversely affect the Environmental Protection Authority’s ability to properly balance all those objectives for which it has been tasked. Section 12 of the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011 clearly states and spells out that the authority should carry out its functions. Section 12(2) for instance says that it has to observe the environmental purposes and objectives in the other Acts it partly or fully administers. It is those other Acts that it partly or fully administers that are actually at the core of our environmental protection. Just because our Environmental Protection Authority has that name it does not automatically mean that for instance our Environmental Protection Authority is the same as the Environmental Protection Agency similarly named in other jurisdictions. There is actually a difference. We do not have to have exactly the same legislation.I want to take a few minutes to go through some of I think the points that were incredibly well made by our advisers from the Ministry for the Environment in their departmental report because they went to some considerable trouble to point out to members of the committee exactly what the issues and problems were if this bill was to pass. I guess the most significant and important point that they made was that the content of the principal Act is focused on the administrative provisions rather than the specific environmental management functions of our legislative framework.These specific functions are provided for under a range—that suite—of separate legislation known as the environmental Acts. They are defined in the interpretation section of the Environmental Protection Authority Act and there are in fact six environmental Acts that are involved. They include the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 otherwise known as the “HaSNO Act”; the Climate Change Response Act 2002; the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 otherwise known as the “EEZ Act”; of course our resource management legislation the Resource Management Act; the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act 1988; and the Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996. So those are the fundamental working machinery pieces of legislation that actually protect our environmental resources.When the Environmental Protection Authority carries out functions under those environmental Acts it is required to act in a way that furthers the objectives or purposes of that Act as well as undertaking its functions in a way that meets the objectives specified in section 12. For this reason alone the objective for the Environmental Protection Authority Act was deliberately worded—deliberately worded—to avoid conflict between objectives while still guiding the overall operation of the Environmental Protection Authority. It is this subtle difference I think that was missed by the sponsor of this bill because I think that when you delve down into the rationale the fundamental structure of this legislative framework it becomes clear that our environment is very well protected and it is unnecessary to add this extra potentially confusing wording which will conflict with those other pieces of legislation. It was not deemed necessary at the time and still is not in my view to include the proposal that the member is seeking to achieve.The departmental report went on to cite some very good examples. It went through the submissions submission by submission and provided answers to the issues that were raised by the various submitters. One for instance was that the assertion that the lack of a specific protection objective was in some way an omission—something that was forgotten from the principal Act or that it was an oversight. Clearly that was not the case. That is an incorrect assertion. Issues of environmental protection are of course absolutely considered by the Environmental Protection Authority but always within the context of that environmental suite of other pieces of legislation. That was a common theme of submitters—that the exclusion of Meka Whaitiri’s suggested changes was somehow an accident or an omission. Nothing could be further from the truth.There were further concerns by submitters. One that was quite common was a sense that in some way the principal Act applied an overarching objective that could not be fulfilled by the exclusion of these extra words. Again clearly that is not accurate and was deliberately and intentionally not put in the principal legislation for the very reasons that I have already talked about. The departmental report went on at length submission by submission going through the various points and I thought it was a very good departmental report. But in the end the summary was that the Ministry for the Environment itself recommended that the bill not proceed.But it was not just the Ministry for the Environment officials who were advising us; it was the Environmental Protection Authority itself in its own submission that suggested and indeed pleaded with the committee that this bill not proceed. It said in its submission that the new objective would create a new test to be taken into account that could potentially conflict with the purposes principles and other considerations set out in the environmental Act in question. I think that is a pretty obvious and conclusive position from the Environmental Protection Authority itself. It went on to say that this would potentially provide difficult and time-consuming issues to resolve. There would be confusion on which objectives should prevail as there is nothing in the bill to suggest how a conflict should be addressed or resolved. This uncertainty is likely to lead to additional costs both to the Environmental Protection Authority and for applicants slow down decision-making processes and increase the risk of litigation around the Environmental Protection Authority’s decisions and its processes.I think that the bill as introduced by the member initially was probably well intended but it is often like things that happen in our lives: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In this case the devil would be in the detail. This is absolutely a bill that would add confusion and a layer of unnecessary concern to an already good piece of legislation that supports a suite of legislation. I cannot support this bill in its second reading.