Chauvel Charles: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17864. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Labour voted for the first reading of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill to send it to the Local Government and Environment Committee so we could hear public submissions and expert evidence on its provisions. We had reservations at that point which I expressed in my first reading speech but we thought it was appropriate to hear what the public had to say. One of the major concerns we have had about the functioning of the interim Environmental Protection Authority is that it has been not an environmental protection agency but a national development agency. So far it has been pretty much an understaffed office in the Ministry for the Environment already being used to fast track controversial projects. The Minister for the Environment talked about extreme examples under the previous law and somehow thinks that this justifies the new 9-month fast-track process even though we are hearing extraordinary reports of enormous legal bills consulting bills and major inconvenience accruing to parties and submitters under the 9-month rushed process—one bite at the cherry. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that members opposite Mr Auchinvole and Mr Quinn think public consultation is overrated but members on this side of the House think it is important to hear what the public have to say. I will develop those comments further. 
We have already seen the fast tracking of the Waterview Connection and the time frames for submissions on that project being far too short. That is despite protests from the Eden Albert Community Board and the Auckland Council asking for an extension of deadlines. But never mind there is a pretty poor track record on local democracy on the other side of the House and we know that what community boards and city councils think does not matter too much to people. 
Amy Adams 
: So we just fix it. We just get on and get it fixed. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: As Ms Adams said they just want to get on with it. They know best. They do not really care what local communities say. They just think they can hurry things through in 9 months. The reality is that that is not acceptable to local communities. They need a say and they want a say on what goes on in their communities. That is a right we will ensure is restored to them when we have the opportunity. 
The concern we had around the “trust me” approach being asked for by the Minister is that members opposite have a bad track record on the environment. We look at the extension of the deadline for the national environmental standards for air quality to 2018 ignoring warnings that doing so puts people’s lives at risk— 
Chris Tremain 
: Where did emissions go under that Government? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: —I say to Mr Tremain. Never mind about all the Kiwis who will die as a result of having to breathe poor air; we should just ram things through again and not worry about the cost! That is a summary of the record of those members. 
There is the watering down of the emissions trading scheme adding billions of dollars to the taxpayers’ bill for New Zealand’s carbon emissions and letting off polluters just because they are polluters and they can pollute. Then of course there is the proposal to open up the national parks to mining which was stopped only due to a major outcry from people. There is the abolition of the democratically elected Canterbury Regional Council just so more intensive dairying could be allowed through giving dairy farms more water; the complete sabotage of biofuels policy; and the repeal of the restriction on new baseload fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation. I see the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources is in the House. It was good she conceded in question time the other day—notwithstanding she was trying to claim credit for a whole lot of new renewable energy generation—that fully four-fifths of that generation had been consented on under the previous Labour Government. Then there is the disastrous revision of the New Zealand Energy Strategy which was leaked the other day. The draft already released is short on action and has a strong focus on coal and petroleum development which shifts environmental concerns like carbon emissions to the bottom of priorities giving the lie to the claims that were made in the Minister for the Environment’s initial remarks that this Government prioritises the environment and our environmental values but somehow balances them with the economy. That energy strategy speaks volumes to that claim and I hope many many New Zealanders will read it and see the truth about what this Government’s record actually is in this area. 
There is also the refusal to put in place a standard for smart meters. Instead of putting in place an incentive for consumers to be able to control their energy use in their home and in their business there is confusion and a lack of leadership from the Government in this important area. The vehicle fuel economy standard has been scrapped by National simply because it thinks the standard would just lead to an increase in cost for new vehicles. Then of course there is the phasing out of the old inefficient incandescent light bulbs using 75 percent more electricity than the new efficient eco-bulbs. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Ah the old light bulb control. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Mr Joyce scoffs about it. I can see Mr Joyce’s favourite phrase forming on his foaming lips at the moment: nanny State. It is all about control wanting to tell New Zealanders what to do. But he is conveniently ignoring the fact that China—that bastion of freedom of enterprise and democracy—will very quickly surpass New Zealand as far as energy policy is concerned. We will not be able to buy non - energy-efficient bulbs anywhere I say to Mr Joyce because the major manufacturer of them China will not make them any more because they are so dirty. But never mind. That member should tell people what he thinks they want to hear and they will re-elect him! That is clearly the theory. Unfortunately on environmental matters I think New Zealanders are too smart for that. 
At the Local Government and Environment Committee the concerns we had initially about the content of the bill were actually reinforced by public submissions. We have heard a pretty vanilla version of what happened at the select committee from the Minister; clearly he has asked his— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Is it Milli Vanilli? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: It may be Milli Vanilli actually I say to Mr Calder but that is an artist more from his generation than mine. I will leave him to tell the House more about that. Of course Milli Vanilli was a great lip-syncer I understand. No doubt we will hear more speeches from members opposite! Mr Auchinvole and others will lip-sync to the Minister’s tune read out the departmental notes and spin the lines around what they say is great for the environment and the economy under National. As I say voters are more discerning than that and they know better. 
The concerns about the Environmental Protection Authority are fourfold. I know that National members do not like to listen to the facts but here they are. First of all the Environmental Protection Authority will not provide sectoral leadership. I know it was the Minister’s desire that it should. I know he was well motivated about this. But the reality is that he has been rolled. All it does is to get fast tracking for major projects up and running and all it does is to cobble together some functions from existing Acts. The climate change legislation registry the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s old functions under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and a few functions under the Resource Management Act under the fast-tracking process—that is all the Environmental Protection Authority gets to do apart from those functions mentioned by the Minister: the ozone protection and the other functions. But what about the exclusive economic zone regulation that was so vaunted by the Minister? What about our Antarctic obligations? What about administering under the waste minimisation scheme all those product stewardship schemes that ought to have been brought into force by this Government but have not been so far? 
The first problem with the Environmental Protection Authority is that it will just not be a strong sectoral leader. It will fail at the first hurdle because its legislation is weak and it does not have enough functions. The second problem is that its objectives are not fit for purpose. Nothing in the Act actually tells the Environmental Protection Authority it has to protect the environment. Well how is that for setting up an entity for failure at the first hurdle? Then there is the lack of any independence from the Minister. Under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the functions of the Environmental Protection Authority come closer to the Crown not more distant from it. Well I do not know about other members but I do not think I want this Minister deciding matters under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act; some might say that was actually a conflict of interest for him. 
Finally there is the issue of obligations to Maori. There is no Treaty clause in this legislation yet there is one in every other environmental and conservation Act in this country. What sort of signal does that send about the obligations of the Environmental Protection Authority to deal with the perspectives of iwi? I want to see the Maori Party take a stand on this. Why this omission? This is a major missed opportunity for the environment. The blue-green agenda is bankrupt and the Environmental Protection Authority is not a body we can support.