Smith Nick: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 11 May 2011. Volume:672;Page:18575. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Environmental Protection Authority Bill the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill (No 2) the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill the Ozone Layer Protection Amendment Bill and the Resource Management Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. It is a pleasure to be at the last stage of this important reform to the governance arrangements for New Zealand’s environment in creating the Environmental Protection Authority. The idea of an environmental protection authority was first proposed in National’s 2006  
Bluegreen Vision 
 discussion paper. It was included in our 2008 election policy it was introduced in a preliminary form in our 100-day Resource Management Act reform bill and now alongside these bills it is being progressed into an independent Crown entity from 1 July.  
At the core of this reform is the view that the Ministry for the Environment needs to be the strong and competent policy adviser that the Environmental Protection Authority needs to be the arm’s-length regulator and that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment plays a key role as the auditor of our overall environmental governance system. The parallel in the economic and financial sphere is having Treasury as the policy adviser the Reserve Bank as the regulator and the Auditor-General. The next stage in our work programme is to beef up the role of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in independent environment reporting. When completed this reform will in National’s view give New Zealand a first-class and robust environmental system of governance.  
I welcome a broad consensus in this House with all parties supporting the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority but I am disappointed that some are choosing to oppose this legislation on pretty spurious grounds. Let me go through each of the arguments put forward by the Opposition in the Committee stage. Labour’s Louisa Wall said she opposed the legislation because it contained a ministerial veto on Environmental Protection Authority consent decisions. No such provision exists anywhere in the legislation. The irony is that the only veto provision where a Minister could overturn a consent decision was actually repealed by National in our 2009 Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill after that provision was so badly discredited by Chris Carter over the Whangamata marina. Louisa Wall’s contribution only made Labour look pathetic.  
We had a far more thoughtful contribution from Charles Chauvel. His concern was the lack of provision in this legislation for environmental regulation in the exclusive economic zone. This is an issue on which we agree and work is well under way to achieve this. The debate here is only over timing. The Government following the environmental tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico sought an independent review of our regulatory system for offshore petroleum to be sure that our reforms would provide the most robust regime possible. This is complex policy and we want to get it right. It needs to be carefully intermeshed with the existing fisheries transport mining and other statutes so that we do not have double ups nor do we want gaps. My plan is to have a bill before the House in coming months to address this.  
One of the other repeated objections was that the Environmental Protection Authority did not have a clear protection mandate in its purpose and that somehow this made the legislation deficient. The reality is that the Environmental Protection Authority will be responsible for the administration of a whole number of Acts—the Resource Management Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the Climate Change Response Act and the Ozone Layer Protection Act—and each have their own purpose. Many of these make specific reference to environmental protection in their purpose statements. The problem is that if we establish an alternative purpose for the Environmental Protection Authority beyond that in those Acts we end up with legal confusion over whether the purpose statement in the Environmental Protection Authority Act or in the other Act would be superior—which would trump which. We do not want that sort of confusion. For members opposite to argue that the Environmental Protection Authority has no mandate to protect the environment is to argue that the Acts covering resource management ozone protection hazardous substances new organisms and climate change—all of which Labour members voted for and many of which they designed—do not protect the environment. That is nonsense and it really does expose how shallow Labour’s opposition to this legislation is.  
The most extraordinary contribution in the Committee stage was from Labour’s Brendon Burns. He lambasted the Government for balancing economic growth with environmental protection saying that we had to have either one or the other and that Labour was for the environment. We now know in this election year that Labour is not in favour of economic growth jobs or increasing living standards. I am looking forward to campaigning on National’s rational Bluegreens platform of marrying together economic growth with sound environmental management against the anti-growth Labour policy that Brendon Burns is now advocating.  
In contrast I compliment the very constructive role the Maori Party has played in our decisions on the Environmental Protection Authority. The Maori Party brings a strong cultural ethos of sustainable development to this work recognising that Maori see the use and development of New Zealand’s natural resources as important while also showing a strong commitment to sustainable environmental management. The Maori Party advocated for a separate Crown entity it argued for the Maori advisory committee and it argued for appropriate recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi. All of these are contained in this legislation.  
I wish to conclude with some important thankyous. I wish to acknowledge the good policy work that was led by Dr Paul Reynolds and the Ministry for the Environment and the work of the Parliamentary Counsel Office in supporting the Government in putting together this legislation. I thank the board and staff of the Environmental Risk Management Authority who caught up in the winds of change have retained a strong focus on doing their existing job well. I also thank the Local Government and Environment Committee particularly its chair Chris Auchinvole and its members for the work they put into getting the important detail of this legislation right.  
The idea of the Environmental Protection Authority is an idea whose time has come. The key to its success will be in its being a fair effective and efficient regulator of our environment. We do not want an expensive bureaucracy nor a feeble rubber stamp. We want a technically expert professional organisation that will protect that which is precious to all New Zealanders while enabling our economy to grow and prosper. I wish the new authority well. It is so important to the success of our country.