Briefing on the Environmental Protection Authority annual review

Transcription

1 Briefing on the Environmental Protection Authority annual review Report of the Environment Committee May 2018 Contents Recommendation... 2 Reason for this briefing... 2 Independence of the EPA as a Crown Agent s between Dr Freeth and the Associate Minister s office... 2 Minister s answers to questions in the House about discussions with the EPA... 3 Our hearing with Dr Freeth... 3 Conclusion... 4 New Zealand National Party minority view... 4 Appendix... 6

2 Briefing on the Environmental Protection Authority annual review Recommendation The Environment Committee has considered a briefing on the Environmental Protection Authority annual review, and recommends that the House take note of its report. Reason for this briefing We initiated this briefing to examine whether the Environmental Protection Authority s (EPA) chief executive, Dr Allan Freeth, misled us at the EPA s 2016/17 annual review hearing. This related to answers Dr Freeth gave regarding the independence of the EPA. In carrying out this briefing, we did not find that Dr Freeth had misled us. We presented our report on the 2016/17 annual review of the EPA to the House on 29 March Independence of the EPA as a Crown Agent The EPA is a Crown Entity characterised as a Crown Agent under the Crown Entities Act The Crown Entities Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone Act 2012 provide for the independence of the EPA. We consider that making decisions based on science and being independent are important features of how the EPA operates. At the EPA s 2016/17 annual review, we asked what policies it has to protect its scientific independence. We were specifically interested in any conversations between the chief executive and the Associate Minister for the Environment, Hon Eugenie Sage, regarding the EPA s chief scientist. We noted that the Associate Minister had been critical of some of the views expressed by the chief scientist. We heard that Dr Freeth had not had any discussions with the Associate Minister about the EPA s role, independence, or expression of views. Dr Freeth said that the EPA protects its independence very strongly. s between Dr Freeth and the Associate Minister s office On 29 March 2018, we received a copy of two s between the Associate Minister s office and Dr Freeth. Both s are dated 15 December The first was from the Associate Minister s office to Dr Freeth. It had the subject line Article FYI what gives with the chief scientist of the EPA? Great article by Rachel Stewart. It included a link to an article about the chief scientist by the journalist Rachel Stewart. Dr Freeth s response to the said he had seen the article and was happy to update the Associate Minister privately about discussions with the chief scientist. 2

3 Given these s, we were concerned that some of Dr Freeth s answers to our questions at the EPA s 2016/17 annual review hearing may have been incorrect. Correspondence from the Ministry for the Environment about the EPA We also received a copy of s between the Ministry for the Environment s chief executive, Vicky Robertson, and both Dr Freeth and the Associate Minister s office. This correspondence outlined the ministry s concerns about the science behind some of the statements made by the EPA s chief scientist. Minister s answers to questions in the House about discussions with the EPA On 22 and 27 March 2018, the Associate Minister was asked questions in the House about whether she had discussed the EPA s chief scientist with Dr Freeth. The Associate Minister answered that that the issue had been raised with Dr Freeth at a normal status meeting on 29 November She said she told Dr Freeth that her office had received correspondence expressing concerns about comments by the EPA s chief scientist. The Associate Minister said she was told by the EPA that the matter was in hand. On 3 April 2018, the Associate Minister corrected this information. She stated that Dr Freeth was not at the meeting on 29 November. She said the meeting was a briefing from the Ministry for the Environment about the EPA. Our hearing with Dr Freeth We received correspondence from Dr Freeth on 29 March Dr Freeth stated that, in the period covered by the annual review hearing, he did not have any discussions with the Associate Minister about the chief scientist or the role or independence of the EPA. He said that he was willing to appear before the committee to answer any questions. Dr Freeth appeared before the committee on 5 April When Dr Freeth appeared before us, he acknowledged the s between himself and the Associate Minister s office on 15 December He said that while he offered to have a follow up meeting with the Minister, this offer was not accepted and a meeting never happened. We asked Dr Freeth whether he considers that the Associate Minister s to him on 15 December was inappropriate. Dr Freeth said that the subject line was written by a member of the public in an sent to the Associate Minster. He said the Associate Minister s office forwarded it to him without changing the original subject line. Dr Freeth told us that the Minister responsible for the EPA has a duty to ensure the reputation and neutrality of the EPA is maintained. He considers it is appropriate for the responsible Minister to raise questions about any damage to the neutrality or reputation of the EPA. We asked why Dr Freeth did not tell us about the correspondence he received from the Ministry for the Environment regarding its concerns about comments made by the chief scientist. He told us that he believed our questions were about the Associate Minister not the ministry. 3

4 Conclusion We are satisfied Dr Freeth did not mislead us at the EPA s 2016/17 annual review hearing. The majority of us do not have any concerns to raise after reviewing the written evidence and our hearing with Dr Freeth. Some of us are concerned about the correspondence from the Associate Minister and the Ministry for the Environment to Dr Freeth about the chief scientist. Given the importance of the EPA s scientific independence, we do not consider that it was appropriate for either to criticise the chief scientist. New Zealand National Party minority view National Party members of the committee remain deeply concerned about inappropriate interference by Ministers and senior public servants in the early and unexpected termination of Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Chief Scientist Jaqueline Rowarth s employment. Evidence presented to the committee by Dr Freeth differed in both substance and fact from answers initially provided in the House by Associate Environment Minister Sage. Evidently, and only after public scrutiny by way of release of information sought under the Official Information Act, the factual discrepancies between Dr Freeth s evidence and Minister Sage s answers to Parliamentary Questions, Minister Sage corrected her version of events relating to meetings, correspondence and s concerning her role and the early departure of Dr Rowarth from the EPA. Notwithstanding Minister Sage s inability to recall important meetings, who she did or didn t meet with, when she did or didn t have meetings and her forwarding of highly critical media reports to Dr Freeth, National Party members of the committee remain unsatisfied with explanations provided by both the Minister and Dr Freeth. In particular, and as a result of his second appearance before the committee on the 5 th of April 2018, we are also concerned about the role played by the Chief Executive of the Ministry for the Environment. It became clear by way of Dr Freeth s evidence and upon reading of information released under the Official Information Act that Vicky Robertson had involved herself directly in s, correspondence, meetings and discussions regarding her concerns about the views being expressed by Dr Rowarth in her EPA role. We were repeatedly told by Dr Freeth that the EPA took its role as an independent advisor seriously. Therefore, to have the Chief Executive of the Ministry for the Environment involving herself in matters concerning the independence of view and the performance of their chief scientist was clearly inappropriate, unwise and in breach of the legislative function of the EPA. We were therefore naturally disappointed Government members of the committee used their majority numbers to vote down an opposition request to have Vicky Robertson appear 4

5 before the committee to answer our questions about her involvement in Dr Rowarth s departure from the EPA. We conclude from the evidence: 1) Minister Sage inappropriately forwarded an on that was critical of the EPA chief scientist, a conclusion that she has subsequently admitted. 2) Minister Sage inappropriately discussed the issue of the EPA Chief Scientist s performance and employment with the Ministry resulting in the Ministry s Chief Executive writing a highly critical letter to the EPA. 3) Chief Executive Vicky Robertson wrote a highly critical letter to the EPA regarding its Chief Scientist after consulting with Ministers Sage and Parker on its content and that this letter constituted an inappropriate interference in the EPA. 4) The EPA s answers to questions by the Select Committee at its hearing in February were misleading at best, dishonest at worst. Any reasonable person would have concluded from the EPA s answers that no issues had been raised about the chief scientist when the issue had been raised at the highest levels involving the Ministry s Chief Executive, both Minister Parker and Minister Sage and the Prime Minister s Chief Science Advisor. 5) The independence of the EPA has been compromised with the early departure of a highly competent and respected Chief Scientist and the timing of that departure can be directly connected back to the concerns raised by the new ministers soon after appointment. 5

6 Appendix Committee procedure We met between 29 March and 3 May 2018 to consider this briefing. We received written evidence and heard oral evidence from the Environmental Protection Authority. Committee members Dr Deborah Russell (Chairperson) Marama Davidson Sarah Dowie Jenny Marcroft Todd Muller Hon Scott Simpson Erica Stanford Angie Warren-Clark Poto Williams Hon Dr Nick Smith participated in some of this review. Advice and evidence received We received the following documents as advice and evidence for this briefing. They are available on the Parliament website, along with a transcript of our hearing. Associate Minister for the Environment Response to OIA Request Statement by Dr Allan Freeth