Smith Nick: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17862. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Environmental Protection Authority Bill be now read a second time 
. The establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority marks an exciting new era in the environmental management of our country. New Zealand deserves no less than a world-class regulatory system that reflects our environmental values in conjunction with our economic interests. We need to be smarter in developing ways to grow our economy while lifting our environmental management. The Environmental Protection Authority which this bill establishes will do just that. 
I acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee and particularly its chair Chris Auchinvole for the hard work and scrutiny that has gone on with this bill. I am pleased to note that the committee has recommended that this bill be passed and I signal now that the Government will be supporting the amendments that the committee has recommended; they are improvements to the bill. These amendments will transfer to the Environmental Protection Authority the permitting and enforcement functions under the Ozone Layer Protection Act and the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act that are currently administered by the Ministry of Economic Development. These functions relate to New Zealand’s international obligations under a number of conventions and protocols for both the protection of the ozone layer and the management and transboundary transport of hazardous wastes and chemicals. It makes good sense for these functions to be moved to the Environmental Protection Authority as they align well with the authority’s new role in undertaking the functions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
I also thank all members and submitters who took the time to offer their analysis and opinion of this bill. I am pleased that out of the 38 submissions received a vast majority supported the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority albeit at times there were differing views on the exact form and function that the new authority should take. Some submitters wanted the Environmental Protection Authority to undertake a wider range of environmental functions not provided for in this bill. I say to them as the Government has already demonstrated that the building of the Environmental Protection Authority is an iterative process. For example we have already had a transitional Environmental Protection Authority in place handling proposals of national significance under the national consenting regime that was established as part of the first phase of the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms. 
This is not the end of the journey. The Environmental Protection Authority we are establishing today has been designed to be as flexible as possible to receive extra functions and responsibilities. For example it is my widely stated intention that the Environmental Protection Authority should be responsible for permitting functions under the proposed exclusive economic zone legislation that I hope to bring to this House before the end of this year. In future the Environmental Protection Authority may look more like what some submitters envisaged but for today the Government is confident that the functions and powers we are bestowing on this new authority are a good starting point. 
On the flip side of my last point I know that some members of the committee expressed concern about the Environmental Protection Authority’s ability to adopt new functions and in particular questioned under whose authority that would occur. I am pleased that the committee has clarified this process in that substantive new functions will be able to be added to the Environmental Protection Authority only upon the scrutiny and agreement of this House through legislation. Although it is the Government’s intention that the Environmental Protection Authority be designed to remain flexible enough to adopt new functions it was not our intention that the new authority should assume those functions simply by ministerial fiat. 
I also take the opportunity to address the criticism by some that the protection element of the Environmental Protection Authority is not explicit enough in the purpose of the Act. I find this accusation perplexing as all pieces of legislation that sit behind the Environmental Protection Authority have the protection of the environment at their core. For example the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation which the Environmental Protection Authority will now be responsible for has as its core purpose the protection of the environment and the health and safety of people. The Resource Management Act’s purpose is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources; sustainability is defined in the Act as the use development and protection of our natural and physical resources. The purpose of the Climate Change Response Act is to reduce dangerous levels of climate change greenhouse gases thus protecting people and the environment. 
Some also allege that the Environmental Protection Authority is running contrary to the protection of the environment in its role in administering consents for projects of national significance. Yet I would ask how it is expected that some of our smaller and least resourced councils are able to decide on quite complex nationally significant resource consents and whether that in fact promotes better protection of the environment. The Environmental Protection Authority and the board of inquiry process bring the technically robust expertise needed to scrutinise and pass judgment on the environmental impacts of these proposals. This process ensures more robust decision-making which can only mean better environmental outcomes for New Zealand. The requirement that a decision must be reached in 9 months brings certainty to investment and to those communities that are potentially impacted by a project. I contrast for instance the 15-year-long battle over the Wellington Inner City Bypass and the 12-year-long fiasco over the Whangamata Marina against the 8 months it has taken the provisional Environmental Protection Authority to hear to consider and to issue a decision on the Tauhara geothermal project. 
This Government’s blue-green vision for New Zealand promotes the effective management of resources supported by efficient and effective environmental regulation. This bill does just that by establishing a new Environmental Protection Authority as a one-stop shop for environmental regulatory functions: consenting monitoring and providing technical advice. The Environmental Protection Authority will provide the national leadership that has been missing in the administration of the environment as well as the greater central government direction. This bill is a balanced environmental approach. It reinforces the importance of good scientific and technical skills to effective environmental regulation; it recognises the importance of efficient environmental regulation to our economy. The creation of the stand-alone Environmental Protection Authority marks a major milestone in this Government’s progressive environmental reforms and I commend the bill to the House.