Shearer David: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShearer David: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9356. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I think that last speaker Scott Simpson protested a little too much about what is actually being proposed here. This is a very simple amendment to an Act but it is a simple amendment that has great importance to in fact clarifying what this Act is about. The bill is called the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill—that is the authority we are talking about—and yet there is nothing as I can see in section 12 of the Environmental Protection Authority Act “Objective of EPA” that actually addresses the title of that agency. When I look at section 12 and I will just very quickly go through section 12 as it is set out in the Act it says: “(1) The objective of the EPA 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; and (b) enables New Zealand to meet its international obligations.” Well that is not exactly what you would call ambitious in terms of its protection of New Zealand’s natural resources.In subsection (2) it goes on to say: “When undertaking its particular functions under an environmental Act the EPA must also act in a way that furthers any objectives (or purposes) stated in respect of that Act.” What Meka Whaitiri is adding as part of this amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority Act is simply a new subsection which would be subsection (1)(c)—it would come after subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b)—and it would say: “(c) protects maintains and enhances New Zealand’s environment.” There has been a lot of discussion about how this would be confusing and it would lead to further delays further problems and further expense. But when you look at that simple addition an addition that really is an omission from the original legislation I cannot believe that it is going to create that degree of dissent and it would on the other hand be able to lead to greater clarity about what the Environmental Protection Authority sets out to do.Nick Smith the environment Minister has ridiculed this and talked about it being meaningless that it was not able to add anything—the usual political mumbo-jumbo that Nick Smith goes on and on about. But the fact is that this is fundamental to the Act because it sits at the front of the Act and it guides the passage of this Act. It is not about mumbo-jumbo; it is actually about making sure that the Act sticks to what it is meant to be about which is looking after and protecting our environment. It is adding to and making more ambitious an Act that is inherently very unambitious in the objectives as they are set out today.There has also been a lot of talk about the fact that this would favour the environment over economic development and vice versa. I personally get rather tired of the way that that is split off. New Zealand’s reputation in its economic development is bound inherently to the way that we look after our environment. The clean green “100% Pure New Zealand” image if I remember rightly is about the 22nd most recognised brand in the world. It comes in behind Dell or one of the other big computing companies. It is therefore highly recognisable. It sets us apart from many other countries. It sets our products apart from products from many other countries. Therefore the protection of our environment is inherently about our economic development. I think that what we do and what we tend to do is to say that one should happen and the other should suffer as a result rather than looking at it as two parts effectively of the same coin.I would like to see in clause 4 with the addition of this extra section the recognition that has been omitted up until now that the Environmental Protection Authority is actually all about protecting our environment. That would enable the enhancement of not only our environment but also our economy. Today in question time Nick Smith gave us chapter and verse for why for example—and this is a classic example—our rivers cannot be swimmable. It is shocking to most New Zealanders that somehow we will get sick if we swim in our rivers and that these rivers instead will be brought up only to the level of wadeable—I imagine in rubber waders or gumboots or something. But we certainly would not allow our kids to swim in those rivers. He went on to talk about how birds put droppings in the rivers and asked therefore would we shoot the birds? I mean seriously this person needs to be taken out and given a good talking to. He has lost the plot. He certainly lost the plot in question time today if anybody happened to be looking at that.We must always aspire to having clean rivers. We want our kids to be able to swim in rivers without getting sick and yet this Government seems to be setting the bar so appallingly low and saying that most of the rivers are going to be only wadeable. It is protecting those very industries such as those in the farming sector that are actually responsible for a good deal of our economic prosperity yet its own branding depends on the fact that our environment needs to be as clean and as pure as possible.I come back to the bill. What this bill does is it sets out what we would like to see—that we set the bar high for our environment but at the same time ensure that the economic development the economic progress that comes from our environment is able to be protected. There were 206 submissions that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee as a result of this bill. I understand that the select committee consideration was handled very well. It was a good robust procedure and Scott Simpson deserves praise for his chairing of the committee. Overwhelmingly the submissions were in support of the bill. There were half a dozen submitters I think who spoke against it—once again talking about the possibility that this might bring up ambiguity in the Act. Twenty-two people came before the select committee and spoke on the Environmental Protection Authority amendment. Again most of those were in support.In terms of being able to clarify an Act that up to now lacked—it is fundamental really. The fundamental section that Meka Whaitiri has put into this amendment is to protect maintain and enhance New Zealand’s environment. I struggle to see how any New Zealander listening to this debate would say that that should not go into an Act that purports to protect our environment and the Environmental Protection Authority. If you are looking at this now how could you possibly disagree with “protects maintains and enhances New Zealand’s environment.”? I would have thought that was pretty basic to an Act and to an agency that is called the Environmental Protection Authority. This certainly and simply just means that the authority is able to do its job properly and it does its job properly over six different environmental Acts: the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the Climate Change Response Act—although there has not really been a climate change response from this Government; that Act has been somewhat redundant for a very long time—the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act the Resource Management Act the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act and the Ozone Layer Protection Act. Those are the six Acts that the Environmental Protection Authority has its authority over.I come back to the key point of what we are trying to do here. We are trying to make sure that our environment is well protected and well looked after. Since the current Act has been in place and it has been only 5 years there has been a degree of testing of the Act in terms of what it can cover. That Act went through without any difficulty and I cannot see why in any way adding a third section that sets out to protect maintain and enhance New Zealand’s environment could confuse or create more ambiguity than what is there currently.In conclusion I believe that this bill has been a long time coming. I refute what the Government is saying which is that this is going to create problems. Instead the Act will now do what we want it to do which is to enhance New Zealand’s environment.