Foster-Bell Paul: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9358. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. In speaking on this second reading debate on the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill I would like to follow on from some of the comments that were made by the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee that considered this bill—the honourable member for Coromandel Scott Simpson. He referred to the departmental report in his outlining of the reasons why on this side of the House we are not inclined to support this bill further to subsequent readings.We heard from a range of submitters and there were some who made a particular impression upon me. The area of concern around whether this bill is necessary or not—and I accept that the member has positive motivations in bringing this bill to the House. I am sure she is a hard-working and very honourable member of this House and she has the best motivations in bringing the bill. But there were a number of concerns highlighted by submitters that do deserve our consideration given the implications if this bill is passed into law. There was a question around whether this bill is necessary.We had a number of submitters and five of them in particular I want to name: Agcarm which for those who are not aware represents 30 different manufacturers of animal and crop health products; Federated Farmers and they need no introduction for this House; the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand; Straterra which represents the mining and extractive industries sector; and Todd Energy. I just want to put on note perhaps something of a conflict of interest with Todd Energy in that I had the pleasure of spending time on a placement through the Business Parliament Trust with Todd Energy including visiting its facilities in the Taranaki region last year. I saw what a safe and clean and environmentally minded corporation actually Todd Energy was which returns so much to the community and provides so many jobs and valuable employment both in that region and here in Wellington. Anyway the concerns expressed by those five submitters representing many thousands of people in those industries—in fact probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs within those industries—was that this bill is unnecessary.Todd Energy in particular noted that the Environmental Protection Authority does not currently have an overriding environmental protection mandate and that this was Parliament’s intent when the Act was initially passed. The Environmental Protection Authority exercises its functions under other legislation that already provides considerable protection needs alongside the proposals for use and the development of resources. The purpose is to achieve a balance between development of resources and protection of the environment. I think that Todd Energy made a useful and valuable point there.Both the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association and Straterra said that the current wording of section 12(1) of the Act is deliberately general to avoid interference with section 12(2) whereby the Environmental Protection Authority must further the objectives of other environmental Acts. I think these are useful points that were made by those companies and representative industry groups. The ministry when it did its analysis of the evidence provided submitted to us that it was actually in agreement with that assessment and that is a view that I also happen to share. Turning to another issue which has also been given I think some discussion particularly by Mr Simpson and that is around the uncertainty that this legislation may well introduce.Denis O’Rourke: Or may not.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Considering the uncertainty that could be introduced—and there were additional submitters who said that there would in fact Mr O’Rourke be uncertainty introduced. There were not only Agcarm Federated Farmers the Petroleum Exploration and Production AssociationStraterra and Todd Energy but also Business New Zealand representing 90 percent of the private enterprise in this country Mr O’Rourke—hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk when we are talking about uncertainty being introduced into legislation. That uncertainty could have very real ramifications I think for some of the decisions that have been taken by the Environmental Protection Authority in the last year or two.I personally do not agree with each and every decision that the agency has been taking. I did not necessarily agree with the Chatham Rock Phosphate decision. On a personal basis I might not have agreed with the decision around ironsand extraction in Taranaki and I certainly did not agree with decisions around the Basin Reserve roading improvements that have been stymied holding our capital city back. Although I personally did not agree with them it is important that certainty is present in those decisions.There was one interesting decision that I agreed with very much last year and that was the Environmental Protection Authority’s groundbreaking decision to approve the use of a retrovirus for human liver cancer treatment trials. This is a third-phase clinical trial of a hepatocellular carcinoma retrovirus. It is the first genetically modified organism capable of self-reproducing within humans and this has the potential to save over 300 lives a year in New Zealand particularly among the Māori community because let us remember that Māori and Pacific populations have a higher than average rate of liver cancer.So if we are not to allow such valuable medical trials if we are to introduce uncertainty into the underpinning legislation—because let us not forget the Environmental Protection Authority does not just approve major environmental projects such as the extraction of resources or mining or farming or roading; it also does have a role in our hazardous substances and new organisms enforcement in this country. If we are to introduce uncertainty into the approval of such valuable and important medical research we are potentially putting at risk the lives of many many future patients who suffer from liver cancers at the very least. That is one of many many genetic medicines that I am sure will be trialled as we go forward.In addition to the uncertainty the cost issues were very real and they were raised again by some of those submitters that I have already mentioned. Andrew Stewart in particular for instance said that the amendment would impose a burden of proof cost on applicants making consent applications ever-more expensive. I would take seriously the evidence provided by those submitters because they are people who actually have experience of submitting applications. They represent industries and in fact companies that have experienced delays under the current system and they certainly would not want to see that exacerbated any further by the additional uncertainty and the additional cost implications that this well-intentioned but in my view erroneous legislation brings in.The main impact of this bill that I am concerned about is to increase the complexity in the decision making of the Environmental Protection Authority. As it is decisions are considered very carefully and can take a period of time—in fact so much so that in the last couple of years we have actually had to pass an amendment dealing particularly with the extractive petrochemical industries to make sure that our supply of gas in this country keeps on coming. The last thing this House should be planning to do is putting at risk our ability to power our homes to undertake valuable medical research and to have hundreds of thousands of jobs in these valuable industries that I have referred to. For these reasons this is not a bill that should be advanced further and I oppose it.