Calder Cam: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calder Cam: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 11 May 2011. Volume:672;Page:18596. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on this very important legislation. I would like to respond to some of the criticisms and comments that have been made by the Opposition. I thank Charles Chauvel for his considered and positive contributions throughout the time he was at the Local Government and Environment Committee and in the House. He made the point about the exclusive economic zone and the Minister has agreed that in time legislation will be formulated to take into account the importance of the environmental protection of the exclusive economic zone. Some of the other contributions were a little uneven and seemed to consistently return to the fact that there is no overarching statement in the legislation to protect the environment. Well I suggest that the Environmental Protection Authority is its own overarching statement. The Environmental Protection Authority has no purpose other than environmental protection. It is backed up by the Climate Change Response Act the Resource Management Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Ozone Layer Protection Act.  
Let us make it clear once again: the Ministry for the Environment is responsible for policy. The Environmental Protection Authority has regulatory functions for which it is responsible and this legislation is about a change of regulator. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is the auditor. As I said before the legislation that sits behind the Environmental Protection Authority has the protection of the environment at its core. Separating out policy regulation and auditing functions will ensure the environment is properly protected.  
The Environmental Protection Authority will have an independent board and a Maori advisory board at arm’s length from the Minister. The Environmental Protection Authority is a stand-alone Crown agent. Its decisions are above ministerial influence.  
The posturing from the other side of the House is richly ironic and it is patently ridiculous that those members should try to take a moral high ground in matters environmental. My colleague Nikki Kaye alluded to that.  
Let us look at the emissions trading scheme. Having said in 1999 that the Kyoto obligations were too modest and that a 20 percent reduction was needed the Labour Government presided over a 20 percent increase in emissions. Mindful of the health of our tradable sector which is an area Labour neglected sadly as we know to our cost we moderated the emissions trading scheme and struck a balance between environmental concerns and the economic realities that New Zealand faces. Our emissions trading scheme is workable and affordable. Of course the first emissions trading scheme review as promised will take place and be considered by the Minister in June. Our moderate emissions trading scheme incentivises such things as tree planting replacing thermal with renewable energy and investment in energy efficiency. How effective has it been? It may surprise members to know that after 8 years under the previous Government and a 20 percent increase in emissions in 2009 net emissions came down by 3 percent and in 2010 we will comfortably meet our obligations. These reductions in emissions have reduced cost to the Government and thereby the people of New Zealand by $238 million. Our emissions trading scheme costs half of what Labour’s scheme would cost. The cost to the people of New Zealand—the hard-working New Zealanders and the hard-working families out there—is a little over $3 a week which is half the cost of Labour’s scheme. 
Let us talk about deforestation. Under Labour New Zealand lost 30000 hectares of trees. How many thousand hectares? New Zealand lost 30000 hectares in Labour’s last 4 years in office. The National Government has reversed that deforestation trend. Forecast planting in 2011 will be about 4700 hectares.  
How are we going in renewable energy? Once again Labour talked a lot about renewable energy but did little. New Zealand went backward year after year in terms of the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources. Eighty percent of new generation built was thermal. Under Labour there was more generation from coal oil and gas than ever in our history. In 2010 74 percent of all our electricity generated under this Government was from renewable sources. Thinking of the future 830 megawatts of renewable generation was consented in 2010. Our national policy statement encouraged investment in wind geothermal hydro and tidal power. On 1 May this year New Zealand joined the International Renewable Energy Agency. As many members will know this agency facilitates the rapid deployment and development of renewable energy worldwide. It has a particular focus on the Pacific region which is an area very crucial to New Zealanders’ hearts.  
The Environmental Protection Authority is another strand in enhancing our stewardship of our environment which is something that we in this Government are completely committed to. It is all very well for us to say that but I will mention what other movers and shakers in the environmental word are saying. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Tell us. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: I will tell members. Let me tell members what those people say. This is what the Sustainability Council Executive Director Simon Terry said: “The Ministry for the Environment never had the necessary teeth …”. The Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand said: “The Government decision to establish an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fully fledged is welcomed …”. Finally the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright said: “I’m pleased to see the EPA will be a stand-alone entity as that will ensure its work is not only independent but that it is seen to be independent. I’m also encouraged to see that the new EPA will have a high level of technical capability.” I commend this legislation to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This debate has concluded. During the course of the debate the ACT Party indicated that it would be voting for some of the bills and against others. It is therefore my intention to put the question on the six bills individually so that parties can then cast their votes accordingly.