Burns Brendon: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Burns Brendon: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 11 May 2011. Volume:672;Page:18590. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I swear that if I hear the phrase “Bluegreen agenda” again I will gag. Through the passage of the legislation we have seen clear evidence that the Bluegreen agenda can be consigned to the wastepaper bin. If one does not believe that in respect of the legislation then one needs only to look at the national policy statement on fresh water which most of the environmental groups that were a party to the Land and Water Forum are already condemning.  
I will turn first to the contribution from Rahui Katene on behalf of the Maori Party. Talk about trying to make a silk purse out of a kunekune’s ear. We heard the member say that the amendment she introduced to establish a Maori advisory committee to advise the Environmental Protection Authority delivered on the Maori Party’s commitment to partnership with the Government. In fact her amendment fails dismally in that respect. It does not really deliver in respect of any sense of partnership. Really it diminishes the Treaty because it acknowledges that the advisory board is not much more than a sham in meeting the Crown’s Treaty obligations. The amendment waters down Treaty obligations to the point of simply providing a pretty toothless opinion-sharing body.  
I thought we had reached a stage in the development of our nation where Maori deserved more than at the Committee stage of important legislation a coalition partner representing Maori introducing an amendment that simply delivered a default mechanism in respect of meeting Treaty obligations. That committee will not deliver any amount of partnerships or tino rangatiratanga. It is a sad commentary on the Maori Party. I find myself in the unusual position of being drawn to some understanding of Hone Harawira and the reason he defected from the Maori Party.  
At the commencement of this final reading of the legislation the Minister for the Environment tried to portray Labour—and me in particular—as opposing economic development because of commentary I made through the passage of the legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s what you said. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: No. The Minister did not correctly report me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a strong supporter of economic development but I will support economic development only when it is sustainable. That is not what is provided for by the legislation. The legislation does not even include any reference in its principal clauses to sustainability and the principles and objectives do not include real reference to environmental objectives.  
I put on the record of the House my record of having been instrumental in forming the Marlborough Economic Development Trust. I put on the record of the House my having established a vineyard that contributes to the export economy of this country. I take deep offence at the Minister suggesting that I am opposed to economic development. I am absolutely committed to sustainable economic development. I say to the Minister in respect of my province of Canterbury that I am committed to seeing the greening of the plains but I will not tolerate any more browning of the waters. I do not believe that the Minister’s agency has the necessary power clout budget or commitment nor does the Minister represent in Cabinet a towering presence in respect of environmental protection.  
We are seeing that affirmed by the parties to the Land and Water Forum. Seventy-two hours since grandiose statements were made about how the freshwater policy statement was going to deliver nirvana and future water quality they are starting to peel off. We saw organisations that were a party to that process look to the legislation as a signal that this Government would hold the line and improve environmental quality and enforce protection. Already we are seeing Fish and Game New Zealand the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the Environmental Defence Society the Water Rights Trust and others say that that national policy statement on fresh water is not delivering what they understood was going to be delivered. I am sure they will look equally at this legislation as a record of this Minister’s failure to deliver in respect of environmental policy and protection. 
That was not what we were looking for. We were looking for something akin to the American model which outlines five strong goals and principles on clean air and global climate change clean and safe water land preservation and restoration healthy communities and ecosystems compliance environmental stewardship global climate change—all of those things not actually affirmed by this legislation. That is very unfortunate because there was an opportunity to do so.  
I say to the Minister that he made strong comments to my colleague Louisa Wall in respect of her questioning him about clause 82 of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. She questioned whether he had any veto rights in respect of matters that are called in under the provisions relating to national significance. I just note too that new subsection 142(7) which is inserted into the Resource Management Act by clause 82(3) states: “To avoid doubt the Minister may make a direction under subsection (2) that differs from the direction recommended by the EPA under section 144A.” So if we still have another speaker from the Government I would like some affirmation as to whether that provides a mechanism for a veto in respect of the Minister’s role with call-ins under events of national significance as provided for under this legislation.  
I go back to my opening premise that this legislation was seen by many of us as important legislation. It provided an opportunity for the Government to affirm that it truly was committed to a Bluegreen agenda—an agenda that would balance economic sustainability and environmental outcomes—but unfortunately that has not come to be. We have seen that from the legislation in front of us and from the allied freshwater policy statement released earlier this week. These are disappointing times because New Zealand has to get this right.  
We need to look at the BBC  
HARDtalk 
 programme earlier this week where an eminent journalist grilled the Prime Minister about New Zealand’s environmental record. That was not the first time. Two years ago the  
Guardian 
 claimed that we were “greenwashing” that we had made the claims many times of being a clean and green nation 100 percent pure but the facts were not there. That was 2 years back. The real risks of that are actually there for the farming community. I say that to members opposite from a farming background such as Colin King the MP for Kaikoura and those who represent other rural seats. Those who will pay the price for the failure of the Environmental Protection Authority to really grapple with the issues of environmental protection in the final analysis will be our farmers because the rest of the world’s farmers are looking at New Zealand. Our environmental record is being questioned by the global BBC. It is being questioned by other eminent newspapers and media organisations. We have to acknowledge that our reputation is growing more and more tenuous by the day.  
The Environmental Protection Authority was a chance. It was a chance for a line to be drawn a statement to be made and an assertion to be given that the environment would no longer be the provider of economic growth for this country—that from here on we had to have economic growth that was truly sustainable. Part of that was going to be assured by a stand-alone watchdog organisation with the resources the power the clout and the mandate to enforce environmental regulations to say that when people pollute they pay and to preclude people from having access to resources if they have not committed to those kinds of principles.  
So it is with enormous disappointment that I see this legislation in its final stage of the House. We wish only that the Minister had taken the opportunities in front of him and assured New Zealanders that the Environmental Protection Authority would do what its name suggests.