Dyson Ruth: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 11 May 2011. Volume:672;Page:18580. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is with a little bit of disappointment that I find myself in opposition to this legislation. It is legislation that had it been properly considered had it had a clear plan for the protection of the environment and had it had a Minister for the Environment who was actually driving forward with a clear agenda and some confidence in his role as a Minister—which should be in protecting the environment—then I would be very enthusiastic about supporting it even though obviously it would have been legislation introduced by National. I think that is what both the Minister and the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee with due respect have failed to understand—that actually there are times when proposed legislation can be agreed to by everyone and such opportunities would be wise to take. 
The obstacle National has to overcome in order to do that is to find a plan. A plan in anything would be good: a plan for the economy would be fantastic for the Government to have or a plan for jobs. Speaking from a local perspective I say that a plan for heat pumps in Christchurch homes before the middle of winter would be quite handy. In preparing this legislation a plan for the environment and its protection would have been really valuable. But National did not do that. It does not have a plan for anything and that is why it is with some disappointment that I end up in a position of opposition to this legislation. 
Labour supported the Environmental Protection Agency Bill at its introduction so that the bill could go to the select committee. At the time we said we wanted to hear the debate. We wanted to see whether improvements could be made because in theory the idea is good. As Chris Auchinvole pointed out of course it is good to have a strong regulator and of course it is good to have collegiality—as he so delicately put it. But without a plan and without legislation that backs up the regulator we will just get a bunch of overpaid frustrated bureaucrats and I am not sure that that is what National says it is trying to achieve.  
I am sure the current leader of ACT in the House John Boscawen will have something to say about that. I really look forward to hearing his contribution during this debate and in particular to hear the ACT contribution in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper from Rahui Katene which the ACT leader revealed to the House just a while ago the ACT Party was never consulted on. That is gobsmacking and I am sure the chair of the select committee was also amazed to hear that his Minister had not consulted on that particular provision. 
When this legislation was introduced and before it went to the select committee we said we would support it but would tell the House what our concerns were. One of the biggest ones was exactly that point—that instead of a strong authority with a clear mandate to protect the environment this body would become an overstaffed bunch of bureaucrats who did not have a clear mandate so instead would be used by the Minister as an opportunity to fast track controversial projects. I know that members on the other side will lift up their hands in horror and say they would never do that. Maurice Williamson actually has more integrity so he will not be raising his hands in horror; he knows that is exactly what the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues want to do.  
They want to fast track other projects just as they have already fast tracked the Waterview Connection. The organisation that is meant to be protecting the environment has been used to fast track the Waterview Connection. The time frames for submissions were absurdly short for that process. Local community board representation was deliberately ignored; the voice of the very people being affected was squashed by the Minister. “Who gives a toss about local people?” was what National people said. Even the Auckland City Council asked for the submission deadline to be extended and the Minister told it: “Go back to Auckland. We’re not interested.” Even though it was an Auckland issue—it was the Waterview Connection that was being discussed—not a single National member from Auckland raised his or her hand in support of the local community voice. Those members stood back and let the local voice be totally trampled by the transitional Environmental Protection Authority which was being used by the Minister to fast track controversial proposals.  
In the same way the National Government has done exactly the same thing in the case of Transmission Gully. It has circumvented the Wellington regional freshwater plan by using the Environmental Protection Authority as its vehicle and it will try to do exactly the same thing in relation to the men’s prison at Wiri. Anyone who says that building a men’s prison in a community does not have an impact and therefore it does not matter if it is fast tracked is incorrect. If it were not for this organisation being set up and used to fast track projects local people would be able to have their say.  
Some people might say that that does not sound like what an environmental protection authority or this agency should be doing. But it is exactly what it is doing and that is why Labour has opposed this legislation. Despite the theory about the authority being great every bit of practice that National has used it for has been absolutely abhorrent and absolutely opposed to the very name of the organisation—environmental protection. We should not be surprised though. We should not be surprised that National has used that organisation to ride roughshod over the voices of local communities and to totally discard the concerns expressed by people about the negative environmental impacts of certain proposals. Instead National has used the organisation to just bowl ahead sidetrack all other protections and fast track controversial projects. 
We should not be surprised about that because one of the first things National did when it came into Government was to throw out the emissions trading scheme and bring in a very watered-down version which has added billions of dollars of costs that now have to be borne by New Zealand taxpayers. Those taxpayers who are currently finding it very hard to pay their weekly bills need to be reminded that the National Government has loaded bucket loads of costs on to them through changing the responsibility of polluters in the emissions trading scheme. Polluters have been let off the hook. Nick Smith has said: “Let them pollute. Let them not be charged for their pollution. Instead let ordinary mum and dad taxpayers pay for it.” 
Gerry Brownlee who used to be the Minister of Energy and Resources tried opening up schedule 4 land to mining. It was not until there was a huge outcry up and down the country that finally he changed his mind and backed off. But I am not sure he has backed off that idea completely; he still drools at the idea of having mining up and down our most important parts of New Zealand. It is another example of the way that National has completely ignored our New Zealand “clean green” brand and our “100% Pure New Zealand” motivation for exports and tourism. National members have just said: “We have a quick buck to be made here by people whom we know will donate to the National Party if they are able to take advantage of those opportunities like mining or like providing new BMWs to Government Ministers and therefore we will go ahead with it.”  
The functions of the legislation are too narrow and remain too narrow despite Supplementary Order Papers being produced by Labour to extend those functions. The objectives are totally inadequate; the Environmental Protection Authority is not even required to have environmental protection as one of its objectives. How weak can that be? The authority is not sufficiently independent from the Minister. The chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee is wrong in that particular regard; the authority is not hands off. It can be significantly interfered with by the Minister and that is a very dangerous precedent to have when we are talking about an area in which there is often tension between protection of the environment and development. We cannot afford to have the Minister butting in regardless of who the Minister is. 
The final point I make is that this legislation has introduced a previously unheard of test in respect of consideration of the Treaty of Waitangi. We should have had at the select committee a proper debate about the Treaty clause but instead we had slipped into this legislation at the Committee stage with no scrutiny by officials the select committee or the public a brand new test for consideration of the Treaty of Waitangi. That will be problematic and it will do nothing to pursue a vision of protection for the environment.