Wall Louisa: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Wall Louisa: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18496] 
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
: 
 The Environmental Protection Authority Bill is flawed. I highlight my colleague Charles Chauvel’s press release because we have tried to fix the bill have we not I say to Charles. The reality is that members opposite do not want us to help fix it. Labour opposes this bill quite vigorously and I will tell members why. I will focus on a New Zealand Government press release that was issued at 2.47 p.m. on 16 November 2010 and in it Dr Nick Smith said: “The EPA is about providing stronger central government leadership on environmental issues.” I find that statement incredibly interesting. Members opposite seem to want to protect environmental issues but they do not have as a mandate of the bill or of the Environmental Protection Authority the fact that they should protect the environment. It is completely ironic to have a bill that will not fulfil any of the objectives in the name of the bill. 
I want to highlight what is meant by Nick Smith’s words “providing stronger central government leadership”. We have found that it actually means minimising the opportunity for local people—mum and dad New Zealanders—Maori and other interest groups to have a say about developments that are happening where they live. I will use a few examples. One of them is the Waterview Connection project which is particularly relevant to my colleague David Shearer. I will draw on some press releases about what has happened with the Waterview Connection project and the way the Environmental Protection Authority has undermined the opportunity for local people for elected members of that community to be involved in decision making about projects such as the Waterview Connection project. 
We had people like councillors Simon Friar and Cathy Casey at the time and other community leaders who were given only 20 days to have their say as local people in local communities about an extension that as we all know has a huge impact on local people—homeowners and business people. There was a 40-volume application with 54 resource consents and seven new designations but that community was given only 20 days to respond. I find it incredibly interesting because the community was engaged. Those councillors and leaders wanted to have their say and they wanted to represent the interests of local people but they were denied an additional 10 days. One has to ask how flawed is a process that is supposed to be about democracy— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have listened carefully to the member’s contribution. There is nothing in her speech that has any regard to Part 2 which we are currently considering. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I remind members that we are on Part 2 and that is the Environmental Protection Authority. I ask the member to come back to that matter. 
LOUISA WALL 
: Kia ora Mr Chair. I am just saying that the functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are to exercise the powers and carry out the functions and duties conferred on it under this legislation. I am trying to highlight that in fact this bill erodes democracy and erodes the opportunity of local people—mum and dad New Zealanders—to have a say in developments that are happening in their communities. The mandate of this bill means that if it is designated to have national significance then those mum and dad New Zealanders who live in communities will not have the opportunity to have a say about developments that will affect their daily lives. I want to highlight that that is what Nick Smith was actually talking about when he talked about “stronger central government leadership”. It is actually about the erosion of mum and dad New Zealanders in our community who have a connection to where they live who obviously have a sense of responsibility for the way that their community will develop. This bill will undermine their opportunity to live in that community and to contribute to decisions that will affect their community. That is what I want to highlight. 
I also want to highlight that the National Government as we have in our notes has a bad track record on environmental protection. I say that the National Government has a record on environment non-protection. That is the reality. National has extended the deadline for the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality to 2018 and has ignored warnings that doing so puts people’s lives at risk. National obviously does not care. National has watered down the emissions trading scheme and that will add billions to the taxpayers’ bill for— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member’s comments have absolutely nothing to do with Part 2. None of the issues she has raised are relevant to the part. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I do not need any help. I warned the member earlier that the emissions trading scheme is not part of this debate and the member had just mentioned the emissions trading scheme. The member has 7 seconds remaining. 
LOUISA WALL 
: For anyone who is listening I think they should seriously consider what “stronger central government leadership” means.