O'Connor Damien: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18505] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I probably have to apologise to my colleagues for a start because I am going to say something nice about the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. The Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment may fall over as well. I think it is great that in the transfer of staff in Part 3 to the Environmental Protection Authority their terms and conditions are locked in and carried over. I am almost amazed and shocked that the National Government would do anything like that but it is a very good precedent to set. 
The question I have of the Minister is whether this precedent will be the new standard for changes in the public sector. We accept that the Government seems to be focused on efficiency restructuring and part-privatisation—call it what you like—but in this part there are some very good provisions I have to say. Under clause 38(1A) “The employee’s employment is to be treated as unbroken and the employee’s period of service with the previous employer ending on the close of the day before the employee is transferred …”. 
In summary—and I accept the criticism that I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee so I may not get it entirely right—I think that any New Zealander as my colleague the previous speaker said on reading through the bill will have these questions. It is very reasonable that we in Opposition ask them here not as members of the select committee who have heard hours and hours of submissions but as people who pick up this legislation read it and ask what it means. We can be sure that lawyers around the country will pick it up and take two meanings from the one word. That is the job of lawyers in fact. But the public— 
Charles Chauvel 
: No—careful! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: With all due respect to my colleague in the front there of course. It is usually for good reason. But the point is that this legislation allows the transfer of unbroken employment terms and conditions and that is to be welcomed. 
The only question I have that relates to Subpart 3 is about how many staff members will be transferred over because the provision is a little silent in that area. I guess it leaves the way open for a reduction in staff although I am led to believe that the Environmental Protection Authority is severely understaffed at present. Any changes or cut-backs would undermine the credibility—not just the integrity but the credibility—of the Environmental Protection Authority. 
I will go to another issue in Part 3 and that is the consequences of the transfer of climate change functions. Again I have to applaud the legislation because it implies that the functions of the former agency—that is the Environmental Risk Management Authority I am assuming—must be carried on under an amendment of the Climate Change Response Act. Under clause 44(2)(g) “the commencement continuation or enforcement of proceedings relating to the function by or against a former agency may instead be carried out by or against the EPA without amendment to the proceedings;”. The legislation goes on to state: “(h) a matter or thing relating to the function that would but for this section have been completed by a former agency may be completed by the EPA.” 
I know that the Committee will think that hearing that is a bit like watching grass grow but I say that the devil is in the detail. We too often pass legislation in this Parliament that has not been thoroughly assessed. The select committee may have been pushed or pressured. I understand that the Minister is under a bit of pressure at the moment and he might push through something that may in fact be detrimental. 
I have questions but I applaud the commitment to climate change obligations. I think they imply that environmental standards in this area will be upheld by the new Environmental Protection Agency. We can take for example the Transmission Gully proposal. I guess that the emissions assessments relating to that project—and extensive reports are done in this area before any such project goes through Government agencies now—will be upheld by the new agency. But the water and air quality standards may very well lapse. It is a genuine question. 
Where the Environmental Protection Authority has intervened in big projects—we may think for good reason such as efficiency or whatever the National Government thinks—the question is whether the upholding of the climate change response obligations through Part 3 which I applaud will surpass those of other environmental standards in relation to water quality air quality and any runoff. I ask members and the Minister may want to take a call on this matter why we are putting emissions obligations which we understand are very important right up on a pedestal and through the Act allowing those obligations to be carried through into the new agency but we are saying something else when it comes to water quality. My colleague referred to issues in relation to dairying; no doubt projects will be brought to the Environmental Protection Authority in relation to agriculture. We will uphold emissions obligations but we will forget about the water quality. 
I do not think New Zealanders will accept that decision as fair and they will not accept that the legislation is progress in the area of environmental management. I thank the Chair for the ability to finish on that issue.