O'Connor Damien: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18511] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I guess it was useful to take the assurance of the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment that in repealing section 142(3) of the Resource Management Act and substituting the new subsection in clause 82 in this Environmental Protection Authority Bill the provisions there are all the same as those that are currently in place—that is they provide the ability to call in a resource consent application. I trust that that is true but I suspect that there are some changes. No one could argue with the general thrust of all the provisions in the new subsection (3). In deciding whether a proposal is of national significance the Minister may have regard to widespread public concerns significant use of natural resources effects on structures and features international obligations etc. There are a number of them. They are all laid out here; members will be pleased to hear that I will not read them all out. All of these relate to one particular project that I can think of and that is dairying in the Mackenzie country. I was down there the other day visiting communities and individuals and investigating. The big proposals down there all meet the criteria laid down in new section 142(3) in clause 82. 
I guess that means that the Environmental Protection Authority can step in and make a judgment. It can assess all the criteria and make a judgment on it. But then the thing that concerns members on this side of the Chamber is that if we go to clause 82(3) which adds section 142(7) we see that that subsection states: “To avoid doubt the Minister may make a direction under subsection (2) that differs from the direction recommended by the EPA …”. The underlying or overarching concern—whichever way one sees it—that we have is the ministerial power in all of this. I do not mind trusting one of my colleagues as a Minister but I am not sure whether I have confidence in the current Government because the Minister in the chair at the moment—the Minister for the Environment I think he is called—is the same person who proposed along with all his colleagues mining in national parks. This Minister— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There is absolutely no reference to the issue of mining in national parks in the part of this bill that we are debating so it is not appropriate for the member to raise those issues. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I do not need any assistance. I was listening very carefully to the member and I think he was phrasing his remarks about clause 82 and the Minister’s call-in powers. I will just ask the member to restrain himself to that example. We do not need to relitigate the matter that was the example—I do not want to restate it—but the example was I think one that was pertinent to clause 82. If he would contain his speech to that comparison. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I will hold myself back. We are talking about clause 82. The Minister may call in a matter that is or is part of a proposal of national significance. The Minister and his wise Government considered the Waterview Connection Transmission Gully and the proposed prison in Wiri. All of those issues are of national significance so the Environmental Protection Authority will call them in. But the precious Minister takes offence at my saying that a proposal to mine in a national park may not be called in by the Environmental Protection Authority. Well I put it to members that that is exactly the kind of proposal to mine in a national park that this Minister who already supports that may take to the Environmental Protection Authority. What we have seen is that this clause here overrides the Resource Management Act and replaces the basic and well-understood provisions that say the community through the resource consent process has the ability to have a say and have an influence. The Environmental Protection Authority Bill will remove that ability. So on projects of so-called national significance the Environmental Protection Authority may make a direction or ruling but the Minister of course can override that sort of advice. That is the concern that we have. It is right here in this part of the bill; it is laid out and spelt out. I say to the Minister that if we cannot ask questions about how the Minister will or will not use those powers then we are not doing our job. 
I say that in Opposition I have to ask that Minister who supported mining in national parks whether he will when this legislation passes take to the Environmental Protection Authority proposals to mine in national parks—because they are of national significance. Clause 82 provides that the Minister in deciding whether a matter is or is part of a proposal of national significance may consider whether there is widespread public concern and whether matters involve significant use of natural and physical resources. It lines up. We must ask questions around the inevitable use of this legislation through the country. 
As I say the Government already has the Waterview Connection Transmission Gully and Wiri Prison and we have had a proposal to mine in national parks. I am a supporter of mining but the public of New Zealand and every wise person in this country who understands and upholds environmental protection and all the values that go with it knows that national parks have been set up and established and entrenched in legislation for their natural and recreational values not for their mineral values. I know that is frustrating but the mining industry itself understands that. The question I ask the Minister is whether he will bring to the Environmental Protection Authority a proposal that will generate “widespread public concern” to quote new subsection (3)(a)(i) inserted by clause 82. Will he bring that to the Environmental Protection Authority and then instruct—because he can make a direction—the Environmental Protection Agency to approve that? 
That is my last word on this—that a very important issue is raised in this section laid down here in black and white and it will be up to the courts no doubt and to the Minister to establish some precedent beyond the passage of this bill. That is why the Opposition has an obligation—a moral obligation—to ask those questions and to try to get an answer from the Minister.