Auchinvole Chris: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17866. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I rise to support the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. This bill is an important part of the Government’s programme and it is actually an important part of the parliamentary programme. I find it a little disconcerting to have heard only criticism from Charles Chauvel my parliamentary colleague from the other side of the House—but more of that later. This legislation formed part of our environmental policy at the 2008 election. The public has now come to expect from their National-led Government that it will follow through on its policies and this is another case of our doing exactly that and doing it proudly. 
This measure follows on— 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What about GST? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: That member who has just called out from the back of the other side of the Chamber should be careful because he gets so many things wrong that he is starting to become a legend. This measure follows on from the first stage of the Resource Management Act reforms which were passed and it is really an important part of the process of ensuring that our need for economic growth is carefully balanced with environmental concerns. I draw to the attention of Charles Chauvel the mission statement: “environmental stewardship for a prosperous New Zealand”. That is for the Ministry for the Environment which has a balanced approach. A balanced approach? 
Amy Adams 
: A balanced approach. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Yes balanced. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Balanced—I thank my colleagues. We talk about balance; we know that it is not a popular word with members on the other side of the House. But I believe and National believes that we must achieve the right balance. Part of achieving that balance is ensuring we have strong environmental management at central government level. That is what the Environmental Protection Authority will give us. 
My involvement with this bill has been as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I thank colleagues who are part of that committee for the work they put into the bill and for the constructive debates and discussions we had. I just point out that we appreciate that the Labour members in particular have been going through difficult times and that it has been difficult to provide continuity at meetings. Had they been able to do so Mr Chauvel might not have concentrated just on written submissions because he would have been party to some of the discussion that occurred when we met people at the time and I think he would have been a little more reassured by that process. 
I also thank the officials from the Ministry for the Environment and the Environmental Risk Management Authority for their assistance and advice and for the work they did and provided us with. Indeed as a committee we went across to the Ministry for the Environment this very day today and had a splendid illustration—I think my colleagues would agree with me—of the ministry’s commitment to balance and to its work. It was very very impressive and I commend them. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Inspiring. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It was inspired leadership. 
I will focus though on what Opposition members have been saying about this bill when they have spoken about it. I participated in a debate last Wednesday on the various parties’ approaches to the Resource Management Act. Labour was represented by Charles Chauvel and I listened to what he had to say about the Environmental Protection Authority. He expressed general support for the idea of having an agency of this nature at central government level but he seemed to be frantically scrambling around for something to disagree with. That was what he was doing again today; he was looking searching desperate to find something he could disagree with— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: He could refer to 1980s pop songs. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Indeed. One of the main criticisms he raised was that the bill does not contain a sentence that explicitly requires the Environmental Protection Authority to protect the environment. 
Amy Adams 
: Isn’t that supposed to be the objective? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Indeed. That just shows how desperate Labour is to try to gain traction on something—to find something to criticise. We are dealing in this bill with policy and practicality not cloud nine ideology. As the member knows every bit of legislation that sits behind the Environmental Protection Authority is about protecting the environment. Protecting the environment is at the core of this bill. Protecting the environment is what this bill does and what every piece of legislation does that the Environmental Protection Authority is built on. 
Labour then says the bill is not clear about the need for the Environmental Protection Authority to take Maori perspectives into account in decision making. I find that to be a real example of the fact that Labour members did not come to select committee meetings and hear what was said because the Environmental Protection Authority like the Environmental Risk Management Authority before it will have an independent board and a Maori advisory board. Like the Environmental Protection Authority itself the Maori advisory board will be at arm’s length from the Minister. From the submissions we received we know that the board is regarded as a very good form of inclusion for independent Maori representation. 
This is a good bill. It is the fulfilment of yet another election promise. It strengthens New Zealand’s environmental management. The Environmental Protection Authority will be a strong independent authority that will bring a strong national direction to environmental decision-making and most important it will have the protection of the environment at its core. Thank you.