O'Rourke Denis: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5217. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The objective of the Environmental Protection Authority in the Environmental Protection Authority Act is in section 12 which 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.”This bill would add a new subparagraph to section 12(1) by adding the words: “(c) protects maintains and enhances New Zealand’s environment.” But section 12(2) is also relevant. It says: “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.” So the Environmental Protection Authority must further the objectives under any environmental Act or to put it another way the objectives of the Environmental Protection Authority Act are the objectives stated in “an environmental Act” so then you have to look at those Acts to see what the objectives are.So the problem is there is no definition in the Environmental Protection Authority Act of the words “an environmental Act”. Does it mean the Environment Act itself? You would think it would because it is the Environment Act and yet that Act has no specifically stated objectives at all. Is that not strange? So we have this legislation the Environmental Protection Authority Act that tells us to refer to legislation like the Environment Act and yet that Act has no stated environmental purposes or objectives.Does it mean the Resource Management Act? You would expect that it would. If so then contrary to the Environment Act it has very comprehensively stated objectives. Section 5 says: “(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. (2) In this Act ‘sustainable management’ means managing the use development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way or at a rate which enables people and communities to provide for their social economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while—(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air water soil and ecosystems; and (c) avoiding remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”So contrary to the Environment Act the Resource Management Act has a very comprehensive statement of purpose. So the purposes of the Environmental Protection Authority Act are those in other pieces of environmental legislation only some of which however do have comprehensive statements of objectives. Some like the Environment Act itself have none at all. So that is a problem I believe with the Environmental Protection Authority Act.In order to determine whether the Environmental Protection Authority Act has any adequately expressed objectives at all depends on whether the Environment Act has any adequately expressed environmental objectives. And it also depends of course on the interpretation of the words “an environmental Act” in section 12(2). There is no definition in the Act of those words. The most important Act thought to apply is I believe the Resource Management Act 1991. It has stated objectives whereas the Environment Act itself has none.So what we see therefore is that the Environmental Protection Authority Act has sloppy drafting when it comes to finding out what its objectives are. You have to refer to other legislation some of which has environmental objective statements and some of which does not. For that reason alone it is necessary this bill goes to a select committee to sort that out—to sort out how the objectives of the Environmental Protection Authority Act should be properly expressed in that Act and not expressed by reference to other pieces of legislation.So the point here is that there is an issue to be fixed and I am surprised that the Government members opposite do not even seem to advert to any of this. It is time they did. New Zealand First will support the bill going to the select committee for that purpose alone.