Chadwick Steve: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18504] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a quick call on Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. It probably reflects the fact that some of us were not on the select committee but we were trying to get our heads around this new Environmental Protection Authority as opposed to the old Environmental Protection Authority. I suppose Part 3 shows us what is in and what is out and the danger of this part is in the missing bits. I cannot work out for the life of me whether this is an authority to protect and enhance the environment which we really hoped it would be I say to the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment. There are substantial bits missing. 
One of the issues I am really worried about here is the disestablishment of the Environmental Risk Management Authority and Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao. I understand that the Maori Party has acceptance for a Treaty clause to go into the bill but I cannot understand why we are setting up a Maori advisory committee in the Environmental Protection Authority. It is subservient to the authority and is just an advisory committee. We have had trouble before with Maori advisory committees and their standing in terms of how much their advice is taken by any authority. We saw it in Auckland City we saw it in Canterbury and we are now seeing it again in this new Environmental Protection Authority. The Government is being too tidy in thinking we will just tuck in a Treaty of Waitangi clause and that therefore we are looking after the interests of Maori and iwi. 
I say to the Hon Nick Smith the Minister in the chair that I am glad he is there but I am not sure whether the iwi advisory committee will pick up the functions of Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao or whether he is intending an entirely new modus operandi for that committee—that little advisory committee. How toothless will it be? How much authority will it have? Will it be listened to or is it just a little bit of flannel sitting there in the Environmental Protection Authority to be listened to but not to be taken much notice of? That is something that I think is offensive to Maori. 
One of the issues that concern me greatly is what is missing in this bill. I am struggling to find out why some bits are not here with the movement of all of the hazardous substances and new organisms responsibilities and loss of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. What is in and what is out and what is now sitting with the Ministry for the Environment? It is not easy to understand and—heaven knows—I was a Minister of Conservation for some time so I do understand the overlapping responsibilities between conservation and the protection of the conservation estate and species and the Ministry for the Environment. But this legislation does not make it any clearer to me at all. 
It is amazing that coastal marine management and the environmental management of New Zealand’s economic zone is not part of this Environmental Protection Authority. I cannot work that out. We have had a Minister of Conservation though who sat on the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement for over 18 months. It was ready to go when I completed my term in office but was not tabled in the House until pressure was put on— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 3 of this bill. There is absolutely no reference to national policy statements or frankly to any other matters that the member has been raising. This part is limited to disestablishment. We have already argued about the functions of the new Environmental Protection Authority. This section is simply about disestablishment and the transfer of functions. The issue of the Maori committee was covered in the previous part and I think the member should be brought back to the provisions of this part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. I ask the member to debate Part 3. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I thank the Minister for his clarification but I think the point has been made about what is missing and I will continue to try to get my head around it. We are not sure about the disestablishment of the Environmental Risk Management Authority and I can remember a former colleague of mine Jeanette Fitzsimons who battled away to get the authority better resourced. But in the disestablishment of the Environmental Risk Management Authority in Subpart 2 of Part 3—I hope the Minister is pleased I am referring to that in this Part 3 debate—I am really concerned about whether all of the functions of the authority will carry over into the new authority. We are really not sure just what is in and what is out. 
I think that will raise confusion for us all even though the Minister is very clear in his head apparently. I tell the Minister that it is about how we tell the story to New Zealanders so that they have confidence in the Environmental Protection Authority. At the moment there are so many shifts of staff from the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Economic Development to the Environmental Protection Authority. The functions of the former Environmental Protection Authority under the Climate Change Response Act will now be “in” as part of the Environmental Protection Authority. I think the country is confused and when we are confused the Minister must accept that we do not have confidence that the new authority will have any more teeth any more powers of coercion or any more effectiveness.