Graham Kennedy: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General 
Graham Kennedy: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:672;Page:18480] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to convey the support of the Green Party for this motion. I will not take up too much time of the House; I want to make just a couple of points in particular reference to the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. When we look at the financial allocations that are conveyed to the Auditor-General the Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment we find a certain asymmetry with due regard to the different work that is required to be undertaken by those officers. One might say in an evolutionary sense it speaks volumes for the priorities that this country and this Parliament place on those aspects. The audit for example absorbs $65 million roughly. Of the total amount allocated annually the Ombudsman absorbs $9 million and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment absorbs $3 million—that is to say $65 million $9 million and $3 million. 
I mentioned this time last year that the amount allocated for environmental work in this respect is very modest and could be increased. I understand that in a time of fiscal retrenchment there would have to be triage; we would have to find the money from elsewhere and I believe that needs to be done. I submit that $3 million is not sufficient. The quality of the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment remains untrammelled but the amount the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment could undertake without question could be increased. I also note that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment budget is held constant over the next 4 years thereby signalling no change in priority between the environment and other issues. In our view that is unacceptable and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment should be allocated more than $3 million a year. 
We want to commend the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for the truly excellent work it has done over the years but particularly over the past year. The six or so reports it has submitted have been of a very high-quality indeed well researched and well reasoned to logical conclusions. There have been reports on the emissions trading scheme on the emissions reduction target on lignite and climate change on mining the conservation estate on the draft energy strategy and on thinking strategically about biofuels. That is not to say the Green Party agrees or agreed with every judgment and every conclusion entered by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment; in fact we took quite definite exception to one of them—the last-mentioned one on biofuels. But objectively speaking we commend the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and her office for the quality of the work they do. One could almost say it is outstanding. 
Before I conclude I want to propose an undertaking. I would like the House to reflect on this comment which I also make to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and to the academic community in general. There are two proposals I would like to make. The first is essentially that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment should undertake a new study. I look at the Environment Act 1986 under which the commissioner is appointed in her functions and I see that the primary function out of seven is the following as stated in section 16(1)(a): “With the objective of maintaining and improving the quality of the environment to review from time to time the system of agencies and processes established by the Government to manage the allocation use and preservation of natural and physical resources”. I repeat: “With the objective of maintaining and improving the quality of the environment”. We then look within the same Act to section 2 “Interpretation” and we find that “Environment” is defined as the following: “Environment includes—(a) Ecosystems and their constituent parts including people and communities; and (b) All natural and physical resources; and (c) Those physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness aesthetic coherence and cultural and recreational attributes; and (d) The social economic aesthetic and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated …”. On the basis of that I would propose for reflection by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that a study be undertaken by her office and advice submitted independently to Parliament—a study of the economic conditions in New Zealand that affect New Zealand’s ecosystem and its constituent parts New Zealand’s natural and physical resources and the physical qualities and characteristics of areas that contribute to the New Zealand people’s appreciation of its pleasantness aesthetic coherence and cultural and recreational attributes. The reason I make that proposal is that from the Green perspective there is a very close and intimate causal relationship between the environment and the economy and vice versa between the economy and the environment. I submit to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that it undertake a study of the economic conditions of New Zealand essentially that affect the environment and New Zealand’s appreciation of the environment in its aesthetic cultural and other dimensions. 
The second study I recommend is of a broader matter of interest but I think it is of considerable interest we might say to the integrity of Government. The principal purpose of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is as stated: the Commissioner has “a unique opportunity to provide Parliament with independent advice in its consideration of any matters that may have an impact on the quality of the environment.” and we have just defined “environment.” It is further stated that the mission is to “maintain or improve the quality of the environment by providing robust independent advice that influences decisions.” 
I have already said that we get very high-quality advice as a Parliament from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment but I think a question is left hanging in the air as to the extent to which that advice influences not only Parliament but also the Governments of the day. I do not necessarily mean only this current Government; I am talking about Governments since the late 1980s when the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was established. It would not be appropriate for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to undertake such a study but I would like to see a broader independent academic study undertaken by a university perhaps or a group of universities acting in consortium on the assessment of what advice to Parliament submitted by the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has been adopted by successive Governments since the establishment of the office. Those are my two proposals in the context of my comments on the motion. I reiterate that we support the motion.