Dyson Ruth: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18453] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is with considerable disappointment that I speak in the Committee stage of Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. I am disappointed because this should have been a bill that every single member of this House with the exception of the ACT members would support. This was an opportunity for the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment to make his mark on environmental protection in New Zealand. It was an opportunity for him to stand up for the things that he pledged and promised to support up and down the country in the run-up to the last election—and in fact to the election before that—and to put some reality to the farce of the Bluegreens. He would have got the support of the House had he had genuine legislation that offered better environmental protection. 
My colleague Brendon Burns the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central was pretty generous. He said in the Chamber just moments ago that the Minister does care about the environment and is passionate about it—that is pretty generous—but that he just got rolled at Cabinet. Well we could give the Minister the benefit of the doubt but if others had been in his position they might not have signed the Cabinet paper that introduced to this House such mickey mouse legislation. They might not have signed that Cabinet paper. That option is always open to the Minister. The officials will come up with all sorts of ideas. The Minister clearly knew that he would be rolled had he put up a strong and comprehensive package of environmental protection because that is not what his Cabinet colleagues want. So instead he settled for this frankly embarrassing legislation. We were hopeful that there would have been some robust debate at the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the Minister might have been able to gather some steel in his spine and offer some Supplementary Order Papers that strengthened the provisions. It was not the case. 
That should not be a surprise though because National has an abysmal record in the 2½ years that it has been in Government. The National Environmental Standards for Air Quality for example have been pushed right out to 2018 and as a Cantabrian I know very well the huge and negative health impact that the lack of air quality standards has on the health of individuals. The Minister does not seem to give a toss about that which is surprising given that his benchmate is the Minister of Health. It is a wonder that the Minister of Health did not mention to him that by pushing out those air quality standards we are literally endangering people’s lives and well-being. The Minister was responsible for and seems to be quite proud of watering down the emissions trading scheme so that basically we have polluters being rewarded for bad behaviour rather than having financial penalties attached to it. Of course the Minister and his personal friend Gerry Brownlee tried to open up schedule 4 parts of our country to mining. That caused an eruption a public outcry up and down the country. There were more people on the streets in Auckland than we have seen for decades protesting the proposal of the Minister and his colleagues to have mining on schedule 4 land in New Zealand. 
So I do not know why we would be surprised that this bill is as poor as weak and as frustrating as it is. It could have been a really big opportunity for our environmental protection to be strengthened but instead the Minister has just thrown away that chance. 
Another disappointment I have is that Chris Auchinvole the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered this bill has not yet taken a call. If he is embarrassed about what happened earlier in the day in the Committee stage then I would not be surprised. If I were him I would be furious. I would be hopping mad to see a member of a tiny party which has recently become smaller come into this Committee and tell all of us that the Minister has agreed to an amendment that the select committee did not have the opportunity to discuss. That party is in coalition with National but it did not even give the chairperson of the select committee any respect at all—a respect that in my view he deserves because I have watched him chair select committees through bumpy times—by having the amendment discussed at the select committee. That is a disgraceful way to treat colleagues. I say to Mr Auchinvole that if he is hopping mad then I share his frustration. I think the chairperson of the select committee should share his frustration with the Minister. 
To talk more specifically though the amendment in the name of Rahui Katene inserts new clause 3A into Part 1. I am gobsmacked that we now have introduced at this stage with no proper parliamentary scrutiny an absolutely brand new definition for the Environmental Protection Authority to have to respond to. This clause says the Environmental Protection Authority will have to “recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi”. What does that mean? There is not a single piece of legislation in New Zealand law that uses the words “take appropriate account”. This amendment introduced on the floor of the Chamber with the Minister’s agreement but without select committee discussion or officials’ advice introduces a brand new test for a brand new authority that does not even have as one of its functions the protection of the environment. 
I want to hear from the woman who should be the leader of ACT Heather Roy. I want to hear from her what her party thinks about a brand new test coming in. I also ask the Minister what “take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi” means. I challenge the Minister to take a call and put on record what those words mean. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Already have. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: He is wrong again. He has not explained what those words mean nor has the member who exposed to the Committee the knowledge that the Minister had already agreed to this shonky backroom deal undermining not just the chairperson of the select committee but the entire select committee process. It is not acceptable for a new test to be introduced in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi particularly by a party that lambasted Labour when we were in Government about our provisions in terms of recognition of the Treaty. 
That is why I support my colleague Charles Chauvel’s amendment. It is consistent with other legislation. It will not need to be retested. It will not need to be argued about and debated and considered. There is a tried and true meaning of the words in his amendment and in my view it is much more sensible. I do not know why the Maori Party which says it wants to enhance the mana of Maori in this Parliament would put forward such a weak amendment. The words “take appropriate account” are frankly an embarrassment to the mana of Maori. Is that what the founding document of our country has come to with a party that says it enhances the mana of Maori? I ask Mrs Katene what “take appropriate account” means. I have no idea and nor will the Environmental Protection Authority. 
This amendment is an embarrassment. I challenge the Maori Party to think again and withdraw this weak amendment which has been put forward only because the Minister found somebody he could get his way with and could win a debate with instead of Cabinet which clearly rolled him on anything that would have given proper strength to environmental protection. The only reason that this amendment in the name of Rahui Katene is here is that the Minister agreed with it. I challenge Mrs Katene to withdraw the amendment and put the name of the Maori Party and its voting weight behind the amendment of Charles Chauvel. That is the proper way to recognise the Treaty particularly in an area as important as environmental considerations and process. 
It would have been far preferable not to have such a mickey mouse outfit. The Minister agreed and explained to the Committee that most of the policy work that is required in order to have a comprehensive framework of environmental protection is yet to be done but at some time in the future that work will be done. We will then get another bill before the House that will give proper environmental protection.