Nick Smith11 May, 2011
Mr Speaker, I move that the Environmental
Protection Authority Bill, the Climate Change
Response Amendment Bill, the Hazardous Substances
and New Organisms Amendment Bill, 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.
The idea of an EPA was
first proposed in National's 2006 Bluegreen
Vision. It was included in our 2008 election
policy, was introduced in a preliminary
form in our 100 day RMA reform bill, and
now, alongside these bills, is being progressed
into its formal status as an independent
Crown entity from 1 July.
At the core of this
reform is the view that the Environment
Ministry needs to be the strong and competent
policy advisor, the Environmental Protection
Authority needs be the arms length regulator
and that the Parliamentary Commissioner
for the Environment needs to be the auditor.
The parallel in the
economic and financial sphere is the Treasury
as policy advisor, the Reserve Bank with
its regulatory function, and the Auditor-General.
The next stage in our
work programme is to beef up the Parliamentary
Commissioner's office role 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.
Mr. Speaker, I do welcome
the broad consensus in this House with all
parties supporting the establishment of
an EPA, but I am disappointed that some
are choosing to oppose this Bill on pretty
spurious grounds.
Let me go through each
of the arguments put forward by the Opposition
in the Committee stages.
Labour's Louisa Wall
said she opposed the Bill because it contained
a Ministerial veto on EPA consent decisions.
No such provision exists anywhere in the
Bill. The irony is that the only veto provision
where a Minister could overturn a consent
decision was repealed by National in our
2009 RMA Amendment Bill after it was so
badly discredited by Chris Carter over the
Whangamata Marina.
We had a far more thoughtful
contribution from Charles Chauvel. His concern
was the lack of provision in this Bill for
environmental regulation in the EEZ.
This is an issue on
which we agree, and work is well underway
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 regime for off-shore petroleum
to be sure 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, marine mammal, mining
and other statutes so that we don't have
double ups or gaps. My plan is to have a
bill before the House in coming months that
will achieve this.
One of the other repeated
objections was that the Environmental Protection
Authority did not have a protection mandate
in its purpose and so was somehow deficient.
The reality is the EPA
will be responsible for the administration
of a whole number of Acts – the RMA, HSNO,
Climate Change, and Ozone Protection Acts,
each with their own purpose. Many of these
Acts make specific reference to environmental
protection, to protection of the climate
etc.
The problem is that
if we go establish some alternative purpose
for the EPA beyond administrating these
Acts, we end up with legal confusion over
whether the purpose of the EPA would trump
that of the RMA, or vice versa.
For Members opposite
to argue that the EPA has no mandate to
protect the environment is to argue that
the Acts covering resource management, ozone
protection, hazardous substances, climate
change, all of whom Labour voted for, and
many they designed, do not protect the environment.
That's nonsense and really exposes how shallow
Labour's opposition to this Bill is.
This most extraordinary
contribution in the Committee stages was
from Labour's Brendon Burns.
He lambasted the Government
for balancing economic growth with environmental
protection saying you could only have one
or the other.
We now know in this
election year that Labour is not in favour
of economic growth, of providing jobs or
increasing living standards.
I'm looking forward
to campaigning on our rational, Bluegreen
platform of marrying together economic growth
with sound environmental management against
an anti-growth Labour Party.
In contrast, I do want
to compliment the very constructive role
the Maori Party has played in our decisions
on the EPA.
The Maori Party brings
a strong cultural ethos of sustainable development
to this work, recognising that Maori do
see 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, they argued
for Maori Advisory Committee to the EPA
and for appropriate recognition of the Treaty
of Waitangi. All these are contained in
the Bill.
I wish to conclude with
some important thank yous.
I wish to acknowledge
the good policy work of the Ministry for
the Environment, its Chief Executive Dr
Paul Reynolds, and the work of PCO in supporting
the Government in putting this Bill together.
I want to thank the
Board and staff at ERMA, who caught up in
the winds of change have retained a strong
focus on doing their existing job well.
I want to also thank
the Select Committee chair, Chris Auchinvole,
and all its members for the work they put
into this Bill.
The idea of the EPA
is an idea whose time has come.
The key to its success
will be in being a fair, effective and efficient
regulatory of our environment. We don't
want an expensive bureaucracy, nor a feeble
rubber stamp. We want a technical, expert,
and professional organisation that will
protect that which is so precious to all
New Zealanders, while enabling our economy
to grow and prosper.
I wish the new Authority
well. It is so important to New Zealand's
success.
Mr Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House.
+ More
Govt works with Greens
on contaminated sites
Nick Smith24 May, 2011
The Government and the Green Party today
signed an agreed work programme to improve
management of New Zealand’s contaminated
sites.
“We have a nasty legacy
of contaminated sites from old mines, gas
works, timber treatment yards, livestock
dips, and chemical works. The Government
and the Greens agree that we need better
laws, more open information, and a more
consistent approach to management and clean
up,” Dr Smith said.
The agreement, signed
by Environment Minister Nick Smith and Green
Party spokesperson for the Environment (Toxics)
Catherine Delahunty, is an addition to the
formal Memorandum of Understanding between
the National and Green Parties signed on
8 April 2009 which covers home insulation,
regulation of New Zealand natural health
products, the New Zealand cycleway, and
animal pest control. The addition to the
MoU has been agreed by Party leaders.
Specific initiatives on the work programme
include:
•$15.2 million Government
contribution to clean-up and stabilise the
Tui Mine tailings dam.
•An independent review of viability of extending
the National Environment Standard to also
protect environmental values.
•Development of an information management
software system for regional councils to
document contaminated sites.
•Compilation of a register of national priority
contaminated sites.
•Reviewing law around legal obligation to
report and liability for clean-up of contaminated
sites.
“This work is underpinned by agreement on
two important principles. The costs of clean-up
should wherever possible be paid by the
polluter, and the public has a right to
know what sites are contaminated and pose
a risk to our environment.
“This is an ambitious
work programme on which we want to consult
with councils and the community. Our goal
is a safer and cleaner New Zealand,” Dr
Smith said.
+ More
New national standard
on contaminated soil
Nick Smith24 May, 2011
Environment Minister Nick Smith today announced
a new National Environment Standard on contaminated
soil saying clear rules are needed for councils
to manage public health risks.
“New Zealand has thousands
of sites that have some level of contamination
from previous use as gas works, timber treatment
plants, livestock dips, fuel stations, chemical
plants, sprayed horticulture or mines,”
Dr Smith said.
Only 14 of 73 district
plans have rules to manage these problems.
The new National Environment Standard for
Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil
to Protect Human Health will help protect
the public by providing greater certainty
on which sites pose a health risk and need
containment or clean up.
The 12 soil containments
covered by the new National Environment
Standard are arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, benzo(a)pyrene, DDT,
dieldrin, PCP and dioxin. The concentration
limits vary for the five different land
uses – rural, residential, high density
residential, recreational and commercial/industrial.
“This initiative is
part of the Government's broader programme
of providing stronger national direction
on the Resource Management Act, which includes
the new Environmental Protection Authority,
and further National Policy Statements and
National Environment Standards. It is far
more efficient to have one nationwide standard
for managing contaminated sites given the
expense of expert toxicologists, and the
similar risks to human health throughout
the country,” Dr Smith said.
“A draft of the National
Environment Standard was publicly notified
and released for consultation in early 2010
drawing 106 submissions. The Government,
in response to submissions and expert advice,
has tightened the soil contaminant standards,
particularly in respect of cadmium, benzo(a)pyrene
and lead based on the most recent scientific
advice.
“There was concern from
submitters including the Green Party that
this National Environment Standard should
go further than just protecting public health
and include effects on the natural environment.
This was based on advice that there is insufficient
robust data to base toxicological limits
for protection of the environment.
“I am happy to explore
with the Green Party extending the new standard
by engaging appropriate expertise to review
the best available scientific information
on whether this advice is correct.”
The National Environment
Standard will be gazetted by an Order in
Council to take effect on 1 September 2011.
A series of workshops will be held and guidance
information will be distributed to councils,
industry and landowners to assist implementation
of the new standard.
The NES is available at: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/hazardous/contaminated/
