Chauvel Charles: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 11 May 2011. Volume:672;Page:18577. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to start by acknowledging the Minister for the Environment’s very full contribution to the third reading debate on this legislation arising from the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. This is significant legislation and it is an important initiative for the New Zealand environment. It is correct that many people have put a lot of hard work into the constitution of the Environmental Protection Authority and in particular the work done at the Local Government and Environment Committee involved careful consideration of public submissions of which there were a number of excellent ones and I think careful thought by members of the committee around the content of the legislation. So although it is helpful to have had a fulsome contribution from the mover of the legislation in the third reading debate it is a shame that the Committee stage proceeded in the way it did. I have had a look at the record of what happened in the Committee stage. There was a 3 hour 45 minute debate over 2 days. We heard from only five members of the Government during that entire debate and I include in those contributions the Minister himself on a short call and the Maori Party member Rahui Katene. The Minister is reminding me that he may have made two short calls. Even if that is the case it is insufficient. We had one call from the chair of the select committee.  
I mention this because I think it is important for the record to reflect that in the Committee stage a number of very significant matters were dealt with. First there had been significant criticism from submitters and the Labour Opposition that a confusing mandate was conferred upon the Environmental Protection Authority by the legislation concerning its obligations around engagement with iwi. In response to that criticism we saw in the Committee stage a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Rahui Katene. Clearly it had been drafted by officials in close consultation with the Minister. That Supplementary Order Paper should have come to the select committee and it should have been the subject of proper consideration by the members of the committee. That did not happen. Instead it was tabled as it were at the last minute in Committee. As I said we had one 5-minute speech from Ms Katene the sponsor of the Supplementary Order Paper. It was touched on in a brief response by the Minister and that is it as far as the Government is concerned. 
John Boscawen 
: And no discussion with ACT! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: One of the Government’s other coalition partners has just revealed that there was no discussion with it although I do note that its members voted for the Treaty clause on this occasion so Mr Boscawen— 
John Boscawen 
: We voted against the Committee and we are voting against the bill. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: No no that is not right. What this confusion shows is just how unsatisfactory the process around the Supplementary Order Paper in particular was.  
On the issue of engagement with iwi this is the position that now pertains in respect of New Zealand’s environment legislation. There are four different types of Treaty clause that exist in different pieces of environmental legislation. They provide different things. There is now an overarching Treaty clause in the Environmental Protection Authority Bill as it currently stands—Act as it is probably about to come. In respect of many of the authority’s other functions there is no obligation to deal with the Treaty or its principles. This is the confusing position that has been created by the Supplementary Order Paper that has been moved and voted on successfully in the Committee stage. This is the mess that now exists in respect of the Environmental Protection Authority’s obligations to consult iwi. If the matter had gone to the select committee if the Minister had had the courtesy to refer it to the select committee and if the Maori Party had actually twigged to the fact that there was no Treaty clause in the original Environmental Protection Authority Bill and had asked for one to be inserted prior to the select committee then we could have avoided all this confusion. But as it is this is the level of parliamentary procedure—the level of impropriety procedurally—that we have been subjected to by this Minister on a key matter as far as the ongoing powers of the Environmental Protection Authority are concerned.  
The other reason why it is concerning we had such a scant level of contribution from Government members in the Committee stage is that the Minister moved a very significant procedural Supplementary Order Paper during that stage. It divided the legislation into six separate bills and it made changes to the way in which the legislation comes into effect. I would have thought the Committee and the House deserved the courtesy of some explanation of those changes from the Minister. The Minister when it suits him likes to talk about procedure but so often his actions do not measure up to the standard he sets himself. Sadly again this is one of those occasions. 
I have some other interesting statistics. We had 20 minutes of calls from Government members and I include in that category Rahui Katene the Minister himself and the chair of the select committee. We had I think some 20 minutes of calls from the Green Party and there were some excellent contributions during those calls. The rest of the 3-hour Committee stage consisted of calls from Labour and despite what the Minister had to say about one of those calls I would like to put on record for the House that it was the Labour Opposition that bore the brunt of the job that is undertaken by the Committee of the whole House—scrutiny of the legislation for all members of the House. So I make no apology for that but I do deplore the fact that there was such a scant contribution on such a key piece of legislation from Government members. If the legislation is so important if the so-called Bluegreens agenda is so compelling I think we might have heard more about it.  
There are other tokens of disregard for the environment in this legislation. The Minister touched on some of them. The first and most compelling relates to the objectives of the Environmental Protection Authority. The Minister said it was just a matter of timing and that he fully intended to bring more legislation to the House later in the year. Why do it that way? That is the question that arises. Why do it in such a piecemeal fashion? This was his opportunity to bring very good and comprehensive legislation to the House particularly at a time when there is public disquiet about offshore drilling and exploration. The Minister knows that that is the case. He had a perfect opportunity to create a comprehensive environmental safety regulator here particularly in respect of that offshore drilling activity. People are concerned about the lack of safety requirements and very very concerned about the lack of any consultation with communities affected particularly iwi. This legislation could have resolved those problems but the Minister was not able to bring comprehensive legislation to the House on the matter. There are many environmental functions that remain outside the purview of the Environmental Protection Authority and that situation should have been remedied right from the start.  
Then of course there is the fact the Environmental Protection Authority does not actually carry any obligation to protect the environment. Nowhere in the objectives in this legislation is there a statement about the Government’s desire that it be an environmental protector. Talk about hamstringing an organisation right from the start! People want to see strong independent environmental regulation from the centre and what they have in this legislation and in this authority is unfortunately a damp squib and that is because of the absence of the overarching requirement that the authority be an entity that looks after the natural environment.  
The other concern that has been voiced time and time again relates to the independence of the authority. This legislation involves moving the powers of the Environmental Risk Management Authority much closer to the Minister. Now the Minister may well be right about individual cases of direction but the problem as I tried to point out in the Committee stage is that the whole tenor of this legislation basically is one of ministerial control and direction rather than independence. That is the default position in this legislation and that is not the way that a proper environmental regulator should have been set up. Labour created the Ministry for the Environment in 1986 because we believed in the fundamental importance of strong environmental regulation and leadership by the Government. We do not believe as the Minister has said so many times that environmental social and economic goals are competitive. They should be complementary. This was a great opportunity but because of the deficiencies I have identified it is a missed one.