Hipkins Chris: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15719] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I picked up a copy of this bill the Environmental Protection Authority Bill a moment ago and I have to say that I was a little surprised. We are establishing the Environmental Protection Authority through this bill but one of the objectives of the Environmental Protection Authority is not the protection of the environment. Is it not ironic that we are setting up the Environmental Protection Authority which does not have as its goal the protection of the environment? I was really surprised to read that in the bill. The bill talks about contributing to the efficient effective and transparent management of the New Zealand environment but there is no mention at all of protecting the environment. It enables us to meet our international obligations—once again not protecting the environment at all. So why are we establishing an Environmental Protection Authority that does not set about to protect the environment? I am little surprised. 
That is something that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be very proud of. He thought the best hospital in the National Health Service was one that had no patients. Here we have the Environmental Protection Authority that does not set out to protect the environment—something I am sure Sir Humphrey Appleby would be very happy about. It is an absolute triumph for the bureaucracy that it is establishing a new bureaucracy that does not do what its title suggests it will do. But having said that Labour will support the bill. If this bill did what it purports to do the protection of the environment is very worthwhile. There is much that is laudable in the overall objective of the bill. 
However we have some concerns and I will be looking forward as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee to hearing what people have to say when they have the opportunity to submit on this bill. I sincerely hope the committee will have sufficient time to do this bill justice. I hope that the select committee process will not be truncated as the resolution put forward by the Minister when he read the first reading speech on this bill suggests it will be. 
As David Shearer just pointed out the Minister is trying to fast track his bill through the House. Therefore how can we have any confidence that the bill if enacted will not then be used to fast track a whole lot of measures? It is certainly symbolic of the Government’s attitude when it comes to environmental protection that it is trying to fast track the bill through the House. I encourage the Government to just take a breath: make sure the select committee can hear submissions without being overly rushed because there is no reason to overly rush this legislation. It is important that we get it right and that the select committee has the opportunity to hear submissions in full. It is important that members of Parliament have the opportunity to participate fully in the parliamentary process which does not happen when the Government continually truncates the appropriate process. 
I am concerned that the bill if enacted will be used to fast track certain projects. David Shearer mentioned the Waterview Connection but there are many others. For example this legislation could be used to fast track the new private prison at Wiri in South Auckland. It could be used to fast track certain oil and gas consenting and regulatory approvals because it will take those functions away from local authorities and vest them with the Environmental Protection Authority. I have to say I have mixed views on that because I recognise that in the consenting and regulation of offshore oil and gas operations there is a body of knowledge that resides within one local authority—that is predominantly within the local authorities in Taranaki. If we move to seeing more widespread oil and gas exploration in other parts of the country we will need to think about how we handle that. If all the expertise resides in the Taranaki area and we end up exploring for oil and gas elsewhere is it appropriate that the local authorities in those areas develop that expertise or is it more important for an Environmental Protection Authority to do so? 
There could be some merit in the Environmental Protection Authority taking on those functions but the feedback that I have had from around the industry is that there is actually a limited body of expertise out there. There will be some important transition issues that will need to be dealt with in regard to that. I have to say overall I do not have a huge amount of confidence in the Government’s track record when it comes to protecting the environment and even less confidence in its track record in trying to pass the Environmental Protection Authority Bill which does not actually set out to protect the environment. 
What have we seen from the Government since it has been elected? We have seen a plan to try to mine the national parks. We have seen the Government water down the emissions trading scheme. We have seen it repeal the biofuel sales obligation which would have allowed a sustainable biofuels industry to be established in this country. That is— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment agrees. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I do not necessarily agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in that particular area. We have seen the Government repeal the restriction on new baseload electricity generation from non-renewable sources such as coal and gas. These are all things that the Government has done in the short period of time that it has been in office which in my view suggests that far from protecting the environment the Government is going in the other direction. It has scrapped fuel economy standards for car vehicles. Gerry Brownlee has resisted any moves to have a common standard for smart metering in our electricity meters. These are all things that the Government could do that would significantly enhance our environmental protection yet this Government is going the other way and walking away from those things. 
I want to talk now about where certain functions will reside in the rearrangement of the Government agencies that this bill involves. The bill refocuses the Ministry for the Environment on policy and moves the Environmental Protection Authority to a role where it administers regulations and then it places the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as the overall systems auditor and monitoring agency for environmental standards in New Zealand. 
When it comes to the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment one of the things we need to be very mindful of is the need to protect the independence of the commissioner. I am concerned that placing all of the focus of auditing and reporting on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment could compromise that. There will still be a role for the ministry and for the Environmental Protection Authority in ensuring that the standards are set and that the data the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment will need for adequate reporting is collected. I do not think that it should be the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to be involved at that operational level of ensuring that the data required is collected. That involves a certain administrative burden and it would require the commissioner to become if you like part of the governing machinery. If we want an independent watchdog then forcing the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to become involved at that level of routine Government administration will seriously compromise that. 
One of the things that I would like to see is either the Ministry for the Environment or the Environmental Protection Authority—and it probably rests mostly with the Ministry for the Environment in the new scheme of things—having a role in establishing the standards for environmental data collection and the enforcement of those standards so that when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment does the reporting this Parliament will hopefully under another piece of legislation in due course require of them that the data and the quality information will be available. The biggest impediment to quality environmental reporting at the current point in time is that the data and the quality information simply do not exist. 
By way of summary I think that this bill is worthy of significant consideration by the select committee. It is important that the public have the opportunity to have a say on it and that people with relevant expertise have the opportunity to have a say on it. I suspect that one of the first things they may want to consider— 
Hon Member 
: We want to vote! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —there are still 3 whole minutes to go—is whether in the functions of the Environmental Protection Authority it might be prudent to list “protection of the environment” as something that the Environmental Protection Authority might actually want to have within its ambit. Maybe protecting the environment rather than simply contributing to efficient effective and transparent management of the environment could be something it would want to think about. That has to be a very novel idea for an agency called the Environmental Protection Authority! 
Overall let us hear what the select committee has to say. I urge the Government to give the select committee adequate opportunity to have a proper hearing on this particular bill rather than once again try to truncate the process and rush it through.