Korako Nuk: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKorako Nuk: Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 16 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9852. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee which I am privileged to be a member of recommended by majority that this bill not be passed. Members on this side of the House took the view during the first reading of this bill that the bill was unnecessary and should not proceed to the select committee. This House decided though that it would in fact proceed to the select committee and I believe that was an unfortunate decision because participating in this select committee process only made it clearer that this bill was unnecessary.I do want to acknowledge the member who put this bill forward. As far as I can tell Meka Whaitiri had the best of intentions in putting this bill into the ballot. She appears to have genuinely thought that these seven extra words would somehow enable the Environmental Protection Authority to more effectively carry out its role of protecting the environment but unfortunately they do not—the evidence we received in the select committee clearly told us that.When Meka Whaitiri introduced this bill in the first reading she suggested that there had been some sort of mistake when the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011 was passed and that the original legislation was supposed to contain the words “protects maintains and enhances New Zealand’s environment” but somehow someone had forgotten to put them in. In fact the preamble of this bill also includes this claim that leaving these words out was somehow an important oversight. I would have expected that for an assertion like that to be included in the preamble of the member’s bill the member would have done her research and actually been sure that it was valid.Neither I nor Meka Whaitiri were in this House when the Environmental Protection Authority legislation was passed but I have done my research and it is clear that the clause she has suggested was never needed in the bill and it is really at odds with the reason we have an arm’s-length environmental regulator like the Environmental Protection Authority. The Environmental Protection Authority was set up to carry out functions that are set out in a number of the other Acts. The primary Act does set out some broad functions and objectives but I would suggest that the most important objective is the one that states that the Environmental Protection Authority must act in a way that furthers the objectives or purposes stated in the Act which sets out the particular functions it is carrying out. In this way the Environmental Protection Authority derives its objectives from a number of different Acts rather than just the Environmental Protection Authority Act.So what are these Acts? My colleague Marama Fox actually highlighted some of them. I want to go through and highlight them because I think these are a very important part of why this side of the House disagrees with this bill. First of all we have the Resource Management Act 1991 and when we look at the purpose clause—this is also reflected in the legislation protecting the exclusive economic zone—one of the purposes in that Act refers to the “protection of natural and physical resources”. It is the protection of natural and physical resources. It goes on to talk about safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of certain resources and avoiding remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment. It sounds to me like it is about the protection of the environment.Then we have the Climate Change Response Act 2002. This Act is focused on one particular aspect of environmental management. It is about the prevention of climate change through reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose statement of the Act is comprehensive but it could be summed up as enabling New Zealand to meet its international obligations to combat climate change. If combating climate change is not protecting the environment then I am not sure what the members opposite think it is. Is the addition of another seven words requiring the protection of the environment going to somehow change how the Environmental Protection Authority administers its duties under the Climate Change Response Act 2002? I do not think so—I do not think so.The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 states that the purpose of this Act is to protect the environment and its health and safety. It is about the health and safety of the people and the communities by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms. Maybe the problem here is that the words “maintains and enhances” are missing. When the Environmental Protection Authority carries out its duties under the Act is Meka Whaitiri concerned that it might attempt only to protect the environment rather than also enhancing and maintaining it? Or is the purpose set out in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 exactly fit for purpose already? It is to protect the environment from dangers posed by these substances and organisms.There is the Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996 which gives its purpose as being to help protect human health and the environment. Once more what is missing here? Nothing. The purpose of the Environmental Protection Authority is clear. It is in its name but it is also in the legislation that the authority derives its powers from. If the purpose statements in these pieces of legislation are not sufficient to ensure that the authority protects the environment why has Labour only just discovered this deficiency?The Environmental Protection Authority was established by the National Government to be an arm’s length regulator of environmental standards. By the very nature of the functions it carries out the protection of the environment is at the core of what the authority does. Adding seven words that supposedly make the difference between the authority protecting the environment or not sounds noble. It sounds noble and at first glance it might make sense. I am not surprised that a number of people submitted saying that actually they thought it made sense for the authority to protect the environment but having looked into the purpose of the authority and the legislation from which it draws its functions it is clear to me that the protection of the environment is already clearly spelt out in each of the authority’s functions.This bill is definitely unnecessary and could potentially undermine the authority’s role as an arm’s length regulator. I once again acknowledge tuahine Meka Whaitiri in bringing this bill to the House. I wish I could acknowledge the work of the member and her colleagues on the select committee but it is hard to be complimentary about a party that is so determined to ignore the advice of officials that its members will sit in the select committee listen to the experts’ advice but still push ahead with a bill the experts have advised is unnecessary.E mea atu ki a koe kia ora. [I say to you thank you.]