Doocey Matt: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDoocey Matt: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 16 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9848. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): 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.