Environmental Protection
Authority (Protection of
Environment) Amendment Bill
11—1
Report of the Local Government and
Environment Committee
Contents
Recommendation
2
Adding an environmental objective
2
Arguments for and against an environmental objective
2
Reasons for recommending that the bill not proceed
3
Conclusion
4
New Zealand Labour Party minority view
4
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand minority view
5
Appendix
7
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY (PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT) AMENDMENT BILL
Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of
Environment) Amendment Bill
Recommendation
The Local Government and Environment Committee has examined the Environmental
Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill and recommends by
majority that it not be passed.
Adding an environmental objective
This member’s bill seeks to amend section 12 of the Environmental Protection Authority
Act 2011, which outlines the Environmental Protection Authority’s objectives. These
objectives are to

contribute to the efficient, effective, and transparent management of New Zealand’s
environment and natural and physical resources

enable New Zealand to meet its international obligations.
The bill seeks to add a further objective: for the authority to “protect, maintain, and
enhance New Zealand’s environment”. The bill’s explanatory note claims that the omission
of an environmental protection objective from the Act was an oversight, particularly
considering the organisation’s name.
Arguments for and against an environmental objective
The following are some of the main arguments we received in support of an environmental
objective:

It would help guide the authority in its decision-making and legally require it to
prioritise effects on the environment.

The authority’s primary purpose should be protecting the environment.

It would help the authority meet its international obligations.

It would help to provide legislative consistency between the other Acts that the
authority administers.

The authority is required to act in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi’s
environmental protection principles, and this should be reflected in the Act.
The following are some of the main arguments we received in opposition to the bill:

Environmental protection is already considered important to the organisation. For
example, the authority’s mission statement refers to environmental protection.

The authority has to balance economic and other priorities with environmental
protection.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY (PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT) AMENDMENT BILL

The proposed objective would change the authority’s mandate, potentially blurring
the lines between its operational work and the work of other policy agencies such as
the Ministry for the Environment.

The proposed objective could create confusion with other Acts that the authority
administers, such as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and
the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act
2012. These other Acts set out that environmental protection must be taken into
account.

The proposed objective would place extra financial constraints on consent
applicants.
Reasons for recommending that the bill not proceed
Balancing multiple objectives
In the authority’s role as a national environmental regulator, the authority must balance
social, economic, and other objectives alongside environmental protection. We understand
that protecting New Zealand’s environment is important and that a healthy environment
helps to support our national economy and clean green image. However, the majority of us
believe that the proposed objective could affect the authority’s ability to balance all of its
objectives.
The authority’s function and its administration of other legislation
Section 12 of the Act outlines how the authority should carry out its functions. However,
section 12(2) of the Act notes that the authority must observe the environmental purposes
and objectives in the other Acts it fully or partly administers. These Acts are the

Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act 1988

Resource Management Act 1991

Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996

Climate Change Response Act 2002

Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.
The majority of us consider that the environmental purposes and objectives set out in these
Acts make it clear that the authority must strive to protect the environment.
We note that the authority is not the only regulatory organisation administering a wide
range of legislation under an overarching Act. Regional councils, for example, are set up
under the Local Government Act 2002. They administer a range of legislation from the
Resource Management Act to the Maritime Transport Act 1994.
The suggested amendment is unnecessary
The majority of us do not believe that adding the proposed environmental objective is
necessary for the operation of the authority. The majority of us are also cautious about
3
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY (PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT) AMENDMENT BILL
adding an environmental objective that could create legislative contradictions, process
impediments, potential legal challenges, and other unforeseen consequences.
The Ministry for the Environment advises the Government on the management of New
Zealand’s environment and international matters that affect the environment. The ministry
monitors and works with the authority “as a key partner to ensure environmental
stewardship for a prosperous New Zealand”.1
The majority of us also note that, although the authority may not have a specific
environmental objective outlined in the Act, it still prioritises environmental protection.
This is evident in its 2014–18 Statement of Intent, which states its mission is to “protect
people and the environment”.2
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the majority of us do not support the further progression of this bill
through the House. The majority of us also note that adding an environmental objective
was considered during the development of the Act and that it was also determined to be
unnecessary at that time.
New Zealand Labour Party minority view
Of the 206 submissions received, 198 supported the bill.
The main points made in support of the bill included the following:

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) should have a strong focus on
protection of the environment.

The EPA lacks an overarching, unambiguous purpose or mission.

The bill would provide greater consistency between the environmental Acts.

The bill would better enable the EPA to meet New Zealand’s international
obligations.

New Zealand should uphold the reputation of a clean green environment by having
an agency with protection of the environment as a core objective.

The bill would align the principal Act with the Treaty of Waitangi’s principles of
environmental protection.
The main points made in the eight submissions that opposed it included the following:

The bill was unnecessary.

Amending the principal Act would create uncertainty and confusion.

The bill would impose delays and impose costs.
1
2
Ministry for the Environment, Review of the Effectiveness of the Environmental Protection Authority: Overview Report,
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/About/review-of-the-effectiveness-of-the-epa.pdf, p.5, as at 4
November 2015.
Environmental Protection Authority, Statement of Intent 2014–18,
http://www.epa.govt.nz/Publications/EPA_SOI_2014.pdf, p.4, as at 4 November 2015.
4
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY (PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT) AMENDMENT BILL

The amendment would prioritise environmental protection over economic growth
and sustainable management goals.

The bill would alter the scope of the EPA.

The amendment would create conflict with the Resource Management Act.
The New Zealand Labour Party notes the similarity in the submissions made by opponents
to the bill with the pre-and-post briefing provided by the Ministry for the Environment to
the committee.
The New Zealand Labour Party notes that the analysis provided followed an “either/or”
framework rather than an “and & and” based analysis. For example, the need for clarity
would lead to greater confusion, where consistency would lead to delays and extra costs,
and economic protection would come at the expense of economic development.
The New Zealand Labour Party would have felt encouraged if officials had taken a “best of
both worlds” approach rather than the either/or approach, as provided in the oral
submission of Cath Wallace from the Environment and Conservation Organisations of
New Zealand.
The New Zealand Labour Party is therefore disappointed that the invaluable knowledge
and expertise of New Zealand-based environment NGOs and Iwi, like Fish and Game,
Forest and Bird, Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand,
Sustainable Council of New Zealand, Ngāi Tahu, and Ngāti Kahungunu’s position on the
bill were fundamentally ignored by officials in favour of their proposition at the outset, and
as shared by Agcarm, Federated Farmers, Petroleum Exploration and Production
Association of New Zealand, Straterra, Todd Energy, and BusinessNZ.
The New Zealand Labour Party considers that economic interests have triumphed over the
protection of our environment, which this bill and the added objective would have
addressed.
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand minority view
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand opposes the majority recommendation of the
select committee that Parliament not pass the Environmental Protection Authority
(Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill. It believes that the bill should be passed to
give the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) an additional objective of undertaking
its functions in a way that “protects, maintains and enhances New Zealand’s environment”.
All but eight of 206 submissions on the bill supported the new objective. Many noted that
the EPA lacked an unambiguous purpose and should have a stronger focus on protecting
the environment. As submitter Nandor Tanczos said, the authority’s current objective
refers to “management”, but it is unclear what the overall purpose of that management is.
Submitters said there is a public assumption and expectation that the reference in the
authority’s name to “protection” means that it has this explicit legal function. It does not.
They also noted that the authority’s mission in its Statement of Intent 2014–2018 is “to
protect people and the environment”. The bill would ensure that the authority’s functions
in law matched its name.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY (PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT) AMENDMENT BILL
The EPA has specific functions under six individual Acts, including the Resource
Management Act, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental
Effects) Act, and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Those Acts include
specific purpose statements that set out how the EPA should operate under those Acts.
Ngāi Tahu said that including the proposed amendment would place an extra “lens” on the
EPA’s decision-making that was consistent with existing legislation and that could be
reconciled with the objectives in those six Acts.
Our economy and society depend on a healthy environment. The EPA’s functions as a
Crown entity and significant decision-maker under our environmental laws should
recognise this. Submitters said that the EPA Act currently allows for environmental
protection to be traded off against the EPA’s first objective of contributing to the
“efficient, effective, and transparent management of New Zealand’s environment and
natural resources”. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand agrees.
If we are to safeguard the quality of our natural environment, decisions about human use
and development of nature cannot be simply efficient and transactional as the authority’s
current objective suggests. Responsible resource management requires the protection,
maintenance, and enhancement of the environment. The bill would help achieve that.
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand believes that a new protection objective is even
more important given changes in the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill which
politicise the decision-making of the EPA under the EEZ Act by having the Minister for
the Environment, rather than the authority itself, appoint hearing panels for marine
consents such as applications for seabed mining.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY (PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT) AMENDMENT BILL
Appendix
Committee procedure
The Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill
was referred to the committee on 22 July 2015. The closing date for submissions was 10
September 2015. We received 85 unique submissions from interested groups and
individuals, and a form submission representing 131 submitters. We heard from 22
submitters who requested to be heard orally.
We received advice from the Ministry for the Environment, the Environmental Protection
Authority, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office.
Committee members
Scott Simpson (Chairperson)
Matt Doocey
Paul Foster-Bell
Joanne Hayes
Tutehounuku Korako
Ron Mark
Todd Muller
Hon David Parker
Eugenie Sage
James Shaw
Meka Whaitiri
7