Shearer David: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
Shearer David: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15717] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I do not disagree with the previous speaker. If we can protect our environment and go forward economically there is absolutely no problem. I think some of the work that has been going on in geothermal exploration and the potential that it holds for New Zealand is fantastic. We could lead not only in that form of energy but also in the science around it that is being created. 
In principle Labour is in support of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. We would like to see it go to the select committee and we would very much like to hear a lot of the submitters who have obviously put some work in behind the scenes submit to the select committee in public. We do support the establishment of an independent agency a stand-alone agency and an agency that is away from the Minister—that has some distance from the Minister—to look at the impact on the environment and not be swayed by political considerations political pressures and to advocate for the environment where necessary. I think that is very important. I am heartened in a way to see the people who have been behind the principle of this bill—people like Jan Wright the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Gary Taylor. There are many people who have worked hard for our environment in New Zealand. 
The question really is whether these factors—independence the ability to work independently of a Minister and advocate for the environment and to hear people’s concerns and have a transparent and open process of submissions—will actually occur. Unlike the previous speaker Louise Upston I am not hugely heartened by what has happened recently. One of the biggest projects one of National’s roads of national significance State Highway 20 runs through the suburb of Waterview which is in my electorate. The community there has not I would argue been given the information that it needs. 
The people of Waterview have been given enormous amounts of technical documentation to go through in 20 working days. There are some six folders of documentation and 54 different resource consents to look through. If I wanted to build a non-complying deck on the back of my house my neighbour would get 20 working days in which to consider it. For this project people in the Waterview community are getting exactly the same amount of time and I believe that that is totally and utterly inadequate. The project has been fast tracked against the wishes of the Auckland City Council and against the wishes of the then Eden Albert Community Board. Both were ignored and they did not want this project to happen. They had 20 working days in which to make submissions. They have now got back an enormous amount of material in order to be able to consider expert opinion. Even the most accomplished engineering firm in Auckland would need that amount of time to go through the volume of material that ordinary residents in my electorate have been asked to go through. 
Then over Christmas last year—Mr Joyce is famous for making announcements during the Christmas period—the project was completely changed. Six days before Christmas he announced that. Of course he did that because there would not be any publicity over the Christmas period. There is a very cynical approach of ramming this project through. People had to study the material on that over the Christmas break and then they had to come back to the submission process early in the new year. 
The other aspect other than the process is the fact that some of the residents’ concerns are very significant. Let us take for example the smokestack. There are two exhaust stacks on this motorway. They will be built 45 metres from a primary school and kindergarten. They will be 70 metres high and they will not be filtered. An enormous construction will go up right beside a primary school. It will take out four of the local soccer fields in the area and although some of them will be replaced in other areas it will scatter the fields all across the region. The very simple things that would make this project much more acceptable to the local community have been completely ignored. One small example of that is that if the Metro Football Club and the Metro Softball Club which are right beside the motorway had an all-weather pitch they would be able to double or triple the number of games being played on that field. That fact is being ignored. 
This motorway is a $1.4 billion project and the Auckland City Council has made a number of submissions on the things it wants to have in order to mitigate the effects on the local community. In a $1.4 billion project can we not find the $10 million or whatever it takes to make an enormous difference and improve the lives of the local community? 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Whatever it takes—that is the Labour Party. Whatever it takes. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: If this was going through the North Shore I say to Dr Mapp he would be standing where I am standing and demanding the money that he needed in order to mitigate some of those sorts of impacts. We are talking about a six-lane highway through a suburban region. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He wants tunnels. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Of course he wants tunnels. These people simply do not want to have a 70-metre high smokestack right beside their primary school. I do not think that is too much to ask. 
The other thing that I will talk about is the control building that is to be built. It was going to be 6 metres high; we are now told that it might be 10 metres high. The dimensions of this project are changing as the residents are making their submissions. It has not even been finalised and the residents are being asked to make submissions. Also with regard to the acquisition of houses on the motorway route a number of people in my electorate have said whoever is doing the valuation of the houses in the region is seriously undervaluing them. When people get independent valuations they find that the independent valuations are invariably at least 20 percent higher than the valuations done by the approved valuer for the New Zealand Transport Agency. 
The Waterview project is an example of the Environmental Protection Authority in process; it is an example of the way that it may work. If this is the way that it will work and if this is the experience that we can take before the bill even comes before the select committee then I think we have some major concerns about it. I will be very interested to hear not only the views of the local community but also the views of other submitters who are trying to protect the environment. So far I do not see any independence from the Minister. I do not see an agency that will go out and really promote the environment. I do not see an agency that will really allow the full voice of the local community to have a real say on a project such as the Waterview tunnel project. 
I believe that this is important legislation. It could bring some very very good outcomes to our environment but only if—and I repeat only if—the authority is independent truly listens to the community and is able to go out and advocate for our environment. I say from looking at the example of Waterview and what is happening there that I do not have a lot of confidence that this will be the case. When we see how the Environmental Protection Authority is being rolled out in practice we see that this bill is not the legislation that we had hoped it might be and will not bring the outcomes that we hoped it might bring. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I look forward very much to hear the views of those out there who are listening to this debate tonight.