Burns Brendon: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18492] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to pick up the theme that my colleague Phil Twyford put before the Chamber this afternoon in respect of the pattern beginning to emerge in the environmental policy of this Government. 
I note that just yesterday Minister Smith announced the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. That statement was looked forward to with enormous anticipation I think by anybody with an interest in the environment of this country. It was obviously brought together under the process of the Land and Water Forum a very good Scandinavian model. I applaud the Minister for setting that up but there is enormous disappointment emerging from some members of that forum. They are looking at that policy just as they looked at the shape and form of the Environmental Protection Authority and they are asking what happened and where the driver of good sound environmental policy went. There are just so many bits missing that deserved to be there. 
In respect of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management for example although we see that councils are supposed to bring in and implement its outline over the next 3½ years there is actually an out-clause: if they find it impracticable to meet the deadline then they have another deadline. That deadline is December 2030. If we were looking to that document as an example of this Government delivering on environmental outcomes we would be waiting a long long time before we began to see the final results of those environmental changes. 
That is paralleled by the lack of any clear commitment to environmental policy in the objectives of the Environmental Protection Authority and that is why I support and applaud the amendment proposed by my colleague Charles Chauvel. The amendment would give this organisation some real functioning form that relates to environmental policy and objectives and is not a bland assertion of bureaucratese. 
The other parallel I draw between the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the Environmental Protection Authority Bill is on the weakening that has gone on between the versions. The basis of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill comes out of National’s much-vaunted  
A Bluegreen vision for New Zealand 
 from 2006. 
Hon Member 
: Oxymoron. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Well it is something of an oxymoron. One of the things I have learnt as Labour’s spokesperson on water is that the most toxic of all the algae to be found in the now polluted river ways of Canterbury is a blue-green algae. It is the cyanobacterium that forms the matting on the bottom of rivers. If dogs go in and eat some of that matting they will die. So in many rivers in Canterbury it is no longer safe for people to take their dog down to the water. We were looking for the Environmental Protection Authority to be a watchdog on those issues. We were looking for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management to be a new tool—a powerful new tool—and for the Environmental Protection Authority to have some role in administering and enforcing it. But I am afraid that both of them are weaker. 
Let us look for instance at the original version of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. It required that conditions be imposed by councils on all discharge permits affecting fresh water so as to protect the environment—so as to protect the environment. What did we see in the version delivered by the Minister yesterday? It simply requires councils to regard any adverse effect. One could not get a blander requirement of a council taking a role in enforcing water quality than that. The Minister is hiding behind the idea that there is an ultra vires legal opinion. I have not seen that tabled yet. He has indicated that he might table it at some point if somebody does not say no to that. I welcome seeing that advice. I say to the Minister that he needs to find a way to give that national water policy statement some teeth. There is no point in having something that is simply wishy-washy and does not put any onus on councils. 
I note the irony that just over a year ago in this House over 30 hours of legislation we passed the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act which did away with the councillors of the original Canterbury Regional Council. I must acknowledge that at least with the Environmental Protection Authority Bill we are taking it through the normal passage of Parliament and I welcome that. That I must say is an advance. I go back to the “Environment Canterbury Deconstruction Bill”—I think it had another name; it was called the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill which is an oxymoron in itself. That bill did away with the councillors because the councillors of that regional council were not delivering effective water policy in that region. 
Of course they argued very strongly that they had great difficulty in enforcing water policy because there was no national framework underpinning what they were trying to do. The Minister claimed that it was the only council that did not have a water plan but I say to the Minister that that is not correct. Environment Southland did not have its water plan in place until April 2010 which was exactly the same time as he said that Environment Canterbury was the only one that did not have a regional water plan. So that was not correct. 
We come to the situation now where we are seeing the requirements for taking charge of water quality being handed back to regional councils without an underpinning framework. So what does that mean? Does it now mean that if councils decide to be good environmental watchdogs—as I think Environment Canterbury was attempting to be admittedly belatedly after some “gold rush” went on for the water resources of Canterbury—and get too vigorous in enforcing the environmental side of the equation they are likely to face the same fate we saw happen to Environment Canterbury? It has been sheeted to them that they will have responsibility but there is nothing underpinning them under the national water policy statement that gives them the basis for making their decision. We have neither fish nor fowl in respect of the national policy statement and it is a bit like the Environmental Protection Authority in that respect. 
The Environmental Protection Authority has been created without a proper goal and objective. The bill does not state that the Environmental Protection Authority is there to protect and enhance the environment. It is formed by an amalgam of existing Government agencies. Most of the staff will come from the Environmental Risk Management Authority from the Climate Change Office and from the fast-track mechanism that the Environmental Protection Authority already embodies. I see nothing to suggest that there will be any staff there to enforce issues like improving water quality. 
The Minister made much much noise today and yesterday about the big increase in funding for improving water quality. There has been a $7.5 million a year increase—whoopsie-do—but at the same time half a billion dollars is being created to facilitate irrigation projects. Of course some of those projects are likely to come to fruition before the several long years the Minister has indicated arrive when we will see the new environmental rules which he still heralds are coming. He says that it will be several long years but some of those new schemes funded by the Government’s half-billion of largesse will come into play. They will not be required to meet any tough new requirements. I suspect that we will see a further deterioration in water quality and that is not even counting the schemes already under way such as the Darfield Fonterra plant. I think there is a view in the industry that if it can push ahead and get some new production in place before new rules come in well that is what it needs to do. 
I think the industry is being encouraged by a Cabinet cabal that the Minister is not part of. He has clearly lost the arguments on both the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the Environmental Protection Authority. This is not the bill that was intimated. It is not the bill that was indicated. It does not deliver on clear goals and objectives to improve the environment as one would have hoped. I am glad to see that we are picking it up. I hope that we might get some support for some environmental goals and objectives for the Environmental Protection Authority as enshrined in the amendment from my colleague Charles Chauvel. 
It is truly disappointing that we are here passing this bill. It will not deliver the environmental gains that we were hoping for. It is a watered-down agency that is an amalgam of existing functions. I ask the Minister for instance whether we are going to see any staff in the regions. To date it was projecting to have about one person in Canterbury. Will we see any people starting out in the regions enforcing issues like water quality like air quality like environmental risk management or will we see a Wellington-based bureaucracy that will be small and tight with no objective and no real capacity to improve on the environment which was supposedly enshrined in the objective of this bill?