Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17893] 
Environmental Protection Authority Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 7 April. 
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. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Maori Party is pleased to speak on the second reading of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. As Mr Davis said the Maori Party has not spoken on this bill at second reading but we are taking the opportunity to do so now; I thank Mr Davis for the invitation. 
We welcome any consideration of the protection and preservation of our environment as it is in keeping with our long-held traditions and values. Any steps that actively seek to take responsibility for caring for our environment are in themselves an expression of kaitiakitanga—the spiritual and cultural guardianship of Te Ao Marama. Tangata whenua view such responsibility as an obligation and a privilege derived from whakapapa. We see that this bill provides the opportunity to breathe life into this responsibility elevating many of the proposals of national significance and issues that were called in under the Resource Management Act 1991. 
Consultation on this bill was undertaken with Maori and iwi leaders and advisers through Te Puni Kokiri. I was advised that the key themes to emerge from Maori consultation were that Maori representation on decision-making boards should be increased to at least two representatives that there is support for the establishment of a statutory Maori advisory committee that the committee should not be seen as a substitute for local iwi engagement and that iwi had a preference that the Environmental Protection Authority be established as a stand-alone Crown agent. Each of these consultation themes could of course warrant further analysis and debate and we hope to do so through the Committee stage of the bill. 
We want to raise some issues for further consideration at this reading. As we understand it the Environmental Protection Authority will undertake all of the functions currently performed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. It will also undertake administrative and registry functions for the emissions trading scheme under the Climate Change Response Act. These are weighty functions in their own right. But it might be important to also consider the opportunity for a wider mandate to provide advice on issues such as wider environmental management the Resource Management Act water and suchlike. 
What is unclear in this bill is precisely how the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority will affect Maori environmental committees advisory boards and governance groups currently operating. We are certainly interested in participating in further discussion with the Minister for the Environment about the nature of the Crown-Maori engagement processes on natural resources within the Ministry for the Environment and how that engagement will input into the structure of the Environmental Protection Authority. 
We note too that the Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended that the Environmental Protection Authority board members not be eligible for appointment to the Maori advisory committee amending clause 17 in Part 2 by inserting new subclause (2A). We will be actively seeking comments from whanau hapu and iwi about this particular proposal. We understand that the Environmental Protection Authority board will consist of six to eight members of which at least two members are required to have knowledge of and experience in the Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga Maori. The board is also required to appoint a statutory Maori advisory committee and to agree to its terms of reference. 
I note our significant support for the appointment of Anake Goodall to the Environmental Protection Authority establishment board which the Minister announced last month. Mr Goodall has acquired a very distinguished reputation as chief executive officer of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu. He was chief executive officer from November 2007 until February this year when he announced he was standing down—a huge loss to Ngai Tahu. He has 35 years’ experience in management and organisational leadership with particular strengths in environmental protection and enhancement and community capacity building. The Maori Party is very pleased with this appointment and believes that through Anake’s membership on the board there will be considerable leadership from tangata whenua in the establishment phase. 
We note also that establishment of the authority will not prevent Maori from having a direct relationship with the Crown on policy and other strategic matters related to natural resources. Of course a complex and sophisticated policy methodology is already in place which enables early policy engagement with iwi leaders and their advisers. This has been a key plank of Maori Party policy: that we encourage the Crown and promote opportunities for Ministers to seek advice from iwi leaders and their advisers across Government policy. We already see in place iwi advisers on fresh water from Ngati Tuwharetoa Waikato-Tainui Ngai Tahu Te Arawa and Whanganui. We see both technical and cultural advisers from whanau hapu and iwi across the resource management reforms and in the development of the national policy statement on biodiversity. We know that there is a Maori reference group on climate change and the emissions trading scheme including representatives of iwi from 13 regions right across the country. 
One piece of feedback we have received is that Maori found that they were able to engage more directly with Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao as established under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The explanation is that direct engagement appears to have been enhanced by the fact of the committee’s independence from Government. Finally throughout all there are legislative requirements to engage with Maori or to recognise the Treaty of Waitangi under such forms as the Resource Management Act or the Climate Change Response Act. 
To make it entirely clear I advise that the Maori Party will be introducing at the Committee stage a Supplementary Order Paper that will propose to include a Treaty clause in the legislation. Mr Davis has sort of taken our thunder by asking why we have not done that. In fact we are doing so. We believe that the number of obligations that Government has with iwi groups is likely to increase over the next few years and it is the absolute intention of the Maori Party to continue to monitor and actively advocate for this to occur. 
In sum therefore there is already a very complex set of arrangements through which iwi have a direct relationship with the Crown on policy and other strategic matters related to natural resources. The question in our mind however is whether we can absolutely guarantee that this new Environmental Protection Authority Bill will improve and advance the quality of engagement currently available to iwi and Maori. The answer to this question will form the basis of our votes at subsequent stages of the bill but for today in recognition of the progress made to date we are happy to support this bill at its second reading. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I congratulate you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson on your appointment this afternoon. I am proud to speak in support of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill which creates a stand-alone Crown agent to perform environmental regulatory functions. I want to address a comment made by the previous Labour speaker who made claims about consultation regarding the mining permit issued on the East Coast. I thought it was worth bringing the House’s attention to an issue that arose in 2008 under the previous Labour Government when a seismic survey occurred with absolutely no consultation whatsoever. That raises the issue of a fairly strong double standard being shown by the gaggle opposite which is rather frustrating when this bill balances economic growth with environmental protection. 
In the interests of time I will speak specifically about one part of this bill and that is what is made possible in terms of national consenting. In my own electorate of Taupo it has been exciting to see the very speedy process with regard to the Tauhara geothermal plant. The initial request was lodged on 19 February 2010 and in the very same year the board of inquiry issued its final report on 10 December. That is a fantastic result and it reverses the disturbing trend under the previous Government when the consenting process took longer than the construction process. That is the sort of roadblock that this Government is pushing ahead and dealing with to make sure that we are able to get vital infrastructure projects up and running much more quickly with consultation and with the involvement of the people in the community who need and want to have their say. I am very proud to support the second reading of this bill. 
Amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.