Auchinvole Chris: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 11 May 2011. Volume:672;Page:18579. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak on the third reading of this legislation. It is a comfort to me to have just heard the speech made by my parliamentary colleague Charles Chauvel. It was perhaps a development from the speeches we heard during the previous debate—the Committee stage—on the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. If I may I will reflect on one point the member made which is the criticism of Rahui Katene’s amendment. Basically the amendment sets out very clearly the Treaty clause in each of the environmental Acts and it sets out how they are to be treated. If that is a major problem then I am quite comforted that that is as bad as it gets.  
The establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority changes the regulator not the regulations. This is something we have emphasised from the very beginning and throughout discussions with the submitters at the select committee. From that point of view the legislation is technical. It does not seek to change the regulations; it changes the regulator. This is a significant point in allaying the concerns that have very properly been brought up by Opposition members in their consideration of this legislation.  
It has been difficult to achieve the sort of consideration that I think makes for really good legislation on environmental changes and I have had that experience in the past. But with changes to the Local Government and Environment Committee membership it was hard to have a consistent discursive approach. I think the Opposition based the minority report—from my reading of it—on the written submissions received by the committee. Some of the key people of the committee because of obligations to other select committees were not able to give cohesive attendance at the select committee on the legislation. So we did not have the sort of discussion on environmental issues we are used to having. This is not a criticism. We understand what it is like to be in Opposition and heading towards an election. It is very difficult. I am comforted that the team from particularly Labour has seen fit to make very complimentary comments about the work of the committee with this legislation and I thank them for that because a lot of work has been done. I am comforted too that the Opposition seems more settled with the legislation now—and certainly more settled in its presence on select committees—and I look forward to the sorts of debates discussions disagreements resolutions remedies and reconciliations that make for good legislation.  
I share Mr Chauvel’s view of the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. It was not particularly formative which was a disappointment to me. But that is the way we are established in Parliament so that is the way it went.  
My view of this legislation is that it is rational and it is National. They go together in this serious legislation. Labour has four main concerns about the bill: the functions are not broad enough the objectives should require the Environmental Protection Authority to protect the environment the authority should be independent from its Minister and the legislation is not clear about the need for the authority to take account of Maori perspectives in decision making. In my view there are short answers to those concerns. Opposition members say the functions are too narrow to provide leadership; they are not. They say the objectives are inadequate and do not expressly require the authority to protect the environment; they do. They say the authority is not sufficiently independent from its Minister; it is. They say the legislation is not clear about the need for the authority to take into account the Maori perspectives in decision making; it does.  
I will expand on why I think that. Under the proposed structure the Ministry for the Environment will have responsibility for policy the Environmental Protection Authority will have responsibility for regulator functions and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment will be the auditor. That is a fairly decent wide sort of a structure to provide leadership. Separating the functions will ensure that the environment is properly protected. All the legislation that sits behind the Environmental Protection Authority—and let us remember that we are changing the regulator not the regulations—has the protection of the environment at its core. The legislation has no other purpose. It is a significant improvement on the status quo of the Ministry for the Environment which a Labour member with some pride said the Labour Government established. Labour left it untouched for 9 years—hence the changes now.  
Like the Environmental Risk Management Authority the Environmental Protection Authority will have an independent board and a Maori advisory board that are at arm’s length from the Minister. That gives a certain safeguard that the authority will take into account Maori perspectives in decision making. That is what those organisations are established for.  
Another key feature that gives me great confidence in the structure of the legislation is the way the relative organisations have packed in scrummed down and got together to make sure that this thing works. It has been salutary to them. We spoke to the organisation representatives at the select committee about how they were bringing together their organisations and how they were going to handle the shift. A lot of human resources have gone into the work and there is a lot of enthusiasm. The thing the organisations anticipate most is that for the first time since they have been doing their work there will be a collegiate structure to give them added collegiate academic strength in the work they undertake. Instead of working in isolation they will suddenly have a group of colleagues to work with.  
Labour has the opportunity to get in behind this legislation and share in the confidence and progress it offers. They should and they could. That would be good. Thank you.