Nash Stuart: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Nash Stuart: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I find it quite interesting that the previous speaker Dr Cam Calder was on the Local Government and Environment Committee which heard all the submissions that he proposes to be passionate about the Environmental Protection Authority Bill that he represents the Government and that he has an interest in this bill yet he stands up and speaks for only about 5 minutes on what is reasonably important legislation. I wonder whether that is because he simply has no plan has no idea how the bill actually works and does not have an understanding of what the bill is about. 
I would have thought that Dr Calder he had an idea of what the bill was about—and this is reasonably controversial legislation—he would stand up for the 10 minutes which is not long to try to sell it to the people of New Zealand. He would have put his best foot forward and explained why the Government is putting this legislation through. But he did not. He either did not or he could not. I suspect his senior whip said to him: “Dr Calder you need to stick on this for 10 minutes because we’re getting a lot of rubbish and a lot of bad emails about this bill. You need to sell this.” So he said to the senior whip that he would do that. He stood up and after 5 minutes he realised that he could not sell the bill because it is not saleable. He asked himself what he would do. So instead of trying to sell the bill he commended the bill to the House and sat down. After 5 minutes he could not even sell it. 
In 10 minutes I will attempt to outline the major concerns that Labour has about this bill. If I had been given 20 minutes—although unfortunately I was not given that amount of time—I would have used the full 20 minutes to outline the concerns. If I had been given the full 2 hours then that would not have been long enough to outline the concerns that Labour has about this legislation. The main reason is that we care about the environment. We understand what New Zealand’s competitive advantage is about. We understand where New Zealand’s competitive advantage lies. 
Labour did vote for this bill in the first reading. Do members know why? Because we support democracy. The reason was that we wanted to know what the people of New Zealand thought about it. We needed to know what the experts thought about it where they saw problems and how they saw the legislation playing out. We wanted to get their ideas. So we supported it to go to the select committee because that is where the robust debate happens. After hearing all the submitters we knew that it was the wrong legislation. It is the wrong legislation for New Zealand. 
But I must admit that when we did support this legislation we had major reservations which were played out. We were concerned that the Minister for the Environment would use the Environmental Protection Authority as a mechanism for fast tracking controversial projects through in an undemocratic way without adequate consultation. Well I will tell members what happened: the Government floated the idea of mining the national parks without consultation. But 40000 Kiwis decided to have some form of consultation and what did they do? Without any sort of advertising they marched up Queen Street and told the National Government: “How dare you even consider mining schedule 4 land?”. Those people understand where New Zealand’s competitive advantage lies. They know that New Zealand’s competitive advantage lies in our pristine environment and in a regulatory framework that makes sure that the environment is protected. This bill does not do that. Labour’s concerns were reinforced at the select committee and we decided to oppose this bill. 
I tell members that when it comes to policy and when it comes to vision there will be only one party that the people of New Zealand will listen to. The party over there does not have a vision and it does not have a policy. It has legislation that will fast track economic policy like mining national parks. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just tell us your policy. 
STUART NASH 
: The Minister for the Environment asks what our policy is. Well I can tell him what our policy is not: it is not to mine national parks. I can tell the people of New Zealand and I say this to the Greens and to anyone who will listen that Labour will not mine schedule 4 land. Labour will not have a Minister for Economic Development who stands up in this House and says we need to mine our national parks. That is what we will not do. 
Further to that we will not have an agency in place that is not answerable to the people but only to the Minister because we know that when it comes to this sort of stuff the people of New Zealand demand the right to be consulted. The functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are too narrow. They are just too narrow. The authority will not provide the environmental sector with any sort of leadership. Do members know why I am right? Because the Minister is trying too hard to defend this legislation. He knows that it is wrong. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: He’s a lawyer. 
STUART NASH 
: He is an environmental engineer I think. In fact I think the Minister may even have a doctorate in environmental engineering. We should look at how far he has come in terms of protecting the environment. The Minister lives in a pristine area. It is one of the nicest places in the country outside Hawke’s Bay yet he is sponsoring a bill that could potentially destroy that. There is only one thing that the people of Nelson will tell him: “Thank you Dr Smith but no thanks.” I predict that Maryan Street will be the next MP for that area. I predict that that will happen. 
The Environmental Protection Authority’s objectives are inadequate. They are just inadequate. They do not even expressly require the authority to protect the environment. Labour will have a policy where the environment comes first. We are living in the 21st century. This is the 21st century when “environmental” actually means something when water quality stands for something when air quality means something and when the people of New Zealand demand accountability from Ministers and from the Government and this bill is taking that away. 
Who would believe that the Minister for the Environment would sponsor a bill that does not even expressly require the authority to protect the environment? Instead as clause 11(1) of the bill is currently worded the objective of the authority is to undertake its functions in a way that “(a) contributes to the efficient effective and transparent management of New Zealand’s environment and national and physical resources; and (b) enables New Zealand to meet its international obligations.” I think that Gerry Brownlee has interpreted “the efficient effective and transparent management of New Zealand’s environment” to mean that he can take in diggers and we can dig it up that we can mine our schedule 4 land that we can mine our competitive advantage and that we can send a message to all those around the world that New Zealand just does not care because we take for granted what the rest of the world requires. 
I lived in a city in Japan for a year and I can tell members that after living in a city like that one really comes to appreciate the beauty that is this wonderful country. One really comes to understand that New Zealand’s competitive advantage is our countryside our national parks our clear water and our clean air. Yet this bill does nothing to protect our international competitive advantage. It is just another case of the fact that the Government actually has no plan. I have come to the conclusion that the Government and the Minister for the Environment in particular has lost touch with reality. The Minister does not understand what New Zealanders want. The Minister does not understand what New Zealanders value and we know that because this bill does not reflect those values at all. 
The authority is not sufficiently independent from the Minister especially on issues regarding hazardous substances and new organisms. In fact its independence is reduced. I wonder whether this bill is just another feature to allow the fast tracking of mining in national parks. I think this bill is leading to that. I think that if Nick Smith is in charge of that then we will see schedule 4 land mined and there will not even be the chance for the people of New Zealand to march up Queen Street because before they know it the bulldozers will be there and that is a disgrace. That is a disgrace as is this bill. This legislation is confusing. It denies our competitive advantage and Labour certainly does not support a bill that is out of touch with what the vast majority of New Zealanders want. I will not be supporting this bill and neither will Labour. Thank you very much.