Faafoi KrisKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I believe we are on Part 5. I would just like to acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith who has taken some opportunities to respond to questions from members of the Opposition. The issue that I want to raise goes to clause 188 which is Part 3A of the Act and the risk of perception and the real risk of actual politicisation of the Minister choosing to appoint members to boards of inquiry for applications for publicly notifiable section 20 activities. I understand that we have some concern with this.Other parties have concern about the fact that the Minister under this new piece of legislation will have the power to appoint board members. I point to new section 53 under Part 3A of the Act set out in Part 5 where there is the ability for the Minister to appoint three to five suitable persons and the Minister may if he or she considers it appropriate invite the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to nominate persons to the board and appoint people with relevant expertise legal experience and obviously tikanga Māori representation on that board when it has in the past I believe been the practice that the Environmental Protection Authority has been the body that has nominated and appointed people to boards of this nature.It is my understanding from some of the earlier commentary in the bill that during the drafting of the bill and advice to the Minister officials advised that that should not be the case—that it should be the EPA I understand that should make the appointments to those boards and not the Minister. On this side of the House we believe that that opens up—regardless of the stripe of Government that might be there—if the Minister has given that power the process of nominating people to that board to political influence.I do note as I have mentioned that there is the ability for the Minister to look at certain skills but under new section 53(3) it does say that the Minister can appoint three to five suitable persons. I guess the question is: what is suitable"? Depending on the issue they might be looking at and the application that might be being made for the Minister at the time "suitable" might be someone who is going to make something happen.I guess my question and our question to the Minister if he is willing to answer it is: why have you gone down this track? It is a departure from the practice that I believe is in place at the moment where the appointment process is free of any ministerial influence. I do note that there is an attempt to be able to give some other discretion to the EPA to be able to—"may"—have some influence on the make-up of the board of inquiry but it seems in the way that it is drafted at the moment the Minister has a lot of influence in the make-up of the boards of inquiry as it stands. There may be a valid reason for that but I think as I pointed out at the beginning of my contribution there is a perception risk and a real risk if the Minister uses the discretion that is within the legislation as drafted here that someone could use those appointments for political reasons.The Minister has responded to questions and I think it is a fair enough question to ask as to why the Government and the Minister have seen fit to depart from what is the practice now and leave the process open to potential political influence.Hon Ruth Dyson: Or accusations of it.KRIS FAAFOI: Yes or accusations of it. I think those boards of inquiry need to be as independent as possible. If the Minister in the chair could potentially address some of those concerns—if it was the case that the officials advised against making this change why he went against that advice and the benefit of having the Minister making those decisions as opposed to the likes of the EPA making those decisions on the appointment—I would welcome hearing the response."