Davis Kelvin: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
Davis Kelvin: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17893] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to be the first to congratulate Ross Robertson on reassuming the position of Assistant Speaker. My colleague Grant Robertson was saying how proud he is to be related to Ross and to bear the same name. I think in their quieter moments together he actually calls him uncle. I offer my congratulations to Ross. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek just a small matter of clarification. Although I have great respect for my colleague Ross Robertson I am not related to him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House has departed from the Standing Orders considerably in the last few minutes but let us return to our Standing Orders. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. It is true that we can choose our friends but we cannot choose our relations. 
We were talking about the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. When the debate was interrupted last Thursday I had just finished congratulating my colleague Stuart Nash on an eloquent detailed and well-thought-out speech. I congratulate him again on that speech. 
The second point I had made was that Sue Kedgley from the Green Party had said that this bill is full of double-speak. One of the areas where the Environmental Protection Authority Bill has double-speak is in its title. We would expect an environmental protection authority to have in its mission statement or its vision some sort of statement that it was there to protect the environment. The truth is that such a statement does not exist. In fact the Environmental Protection Authority’s objectives are inadequate. They do not expressly require the Environmental Protection Authority to protect the environment at all. Instead as the bill is currently worded the objective of the Environmental Protection Authority is to “undertake its functions in a way that—(a) contributes to the efficient effective and transparent management of New Zealand’s environment and natural and physical resources;”. There is nothing in that clause about the authority actually protecting the environment which is why I agree with Sue Kedgley when she says that the bill is full of double-speak. 
Last night I was at a community meeting in Wellsford which is north of Auckland. The reason for the meeting was the Kaipara turbine decision. Also raised at the meeting was the issue of the Raukumara situation whereby according to many Maori the marine environment is under attack. I raise the fact that in the bill there is no provision for the Treaty of Waitangi. I wonder—and I ask the Maori Party—why the Maori Party has allowed the bill to go ahead without any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. Maori Party members stand in the House and claim over and over again that they speak for our people—for the Maori people. I wonder why I am standing here as a Maori member of a mainstream party the Labour Party and I am the only one asking where the reference to the Treaty of Waitangi is. What has happened so that the Maori Party members have forgotten to include reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in the bill? Why has Hone Harawira who says he is the independent voice of Te Tai Tokerau not yet taken a call and asked where the references in the Environmental Protection Authority Bill to the Treaty of Waitangi are? If there was reference to the Treaty of Waitangi and if there was concern for Maori issues we probably would not have the situation we have off the East Coast of the North Island where Ngati Porou and Te Whanau-a-Apanui are protesting that their concerns regarding the marine environment have not been heard. 
The bill “makes provision for a Maori Advisory Committee to be appointed by the EPA board to provide advice to the EPA from a Maori perspective on matters relating to policy process and decision-making.” If the Government is genuinely concerned about the Maori perspective on matters relating to policy and process I suggest that it meet with whanau and hapu in kanohi ki te kanohi—face-to-face—hui. The Government would no doubt be told the perspective of each whanau and hapu in relation to environmental matters.  
Each hapu and iwi has spent a number of years developing environmental plans. Those environmental plans spell out exactly what Maori want for their environment. Face-to-face consultation meetings and discussions with whanau and hapu are needed rather than a Maori advisory committee. I ask what the people in a committee that is brought together from all parts of the country—I am not quite sure how many people would be on the advisory committee; maybe there would be half a dozen—know about issues relating to say the Raukumara Basin the Northland Basin the Reinga Basin off the north-western coast or even the Puhi Puhi Valley in the north. There are real concerns by Ngati Wai and Ngati Hau as to the impact in that valley of what the Government intends in terms of mining and seismic surveying and all those sorts of issues. I say to the Government that it needs to meet and have face-to-face hui with whanau and hapu so that the Government knows what they want. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: They don’t turn up. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: The Minister is calling out. I go back in the bill to where it states: “the EPA is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to the efficient effective and transparent management of New Zealand’s environment”. Maori want transparency. When the Petrobras decision was made the Minister of Energy and Resources’ idea of consultation and transparent communication with Ngati Porou was to give Api Mahuika a phone call an hour before the media were informed that Petrobras had been given the contract for the oil exploration. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s not true. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: The Minister says that it is not true but that is how it was reported. Hopefully the Environmental Protection Authority will live up to the transparent part of the consultation because the Government’s track record in relation to the Raukumara Basin and the letting of the oil exploration permit has not been transparent. That is why Ngati Porou and Te Whanau-a-Apanui have had a flotilla off the East Coast with people jumping in the water protesting and trying to stop the seismic survey. They are concerned about what will happen to the marine environment. We all know the story. We saw what happened last year over in the Gulf of Mexico. That is the concern. 
If Maori had the opportunity for decent consultation and were able to put their views out there and if the Government met with the right people then a lot of the angst would be alleviated. Instead decisions are being made that Maori are not able to participate in fully. Their iwi and hapu environmental plans are not truly being taken into account. That is why there are Maori who are annoyed. Things are happening to them and instead of their being engaged in the decision making they are standing up and saying that they do not accept it and they want to halt things. If they were fully involved in the decision making and were active participants in it we would see a lot better progress than we are seeing now. 
Labour opposes the bill and the proposed Environmental Protection Authority. At this stage I do not think there will be benefits to Maori. I say again that it is sad that the Maori Party members have not stood up and explained why they have not included Treaty of Waitangi clauses in the bill. It is an indictment on them. Kia ora.