Dyson Ruth: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 23 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4676. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):I am sorry. I was sitting behind you and you obviously did not hear me. I am disappointed actually rather than pleased to be able to contribute in this debate on Part 2 of the Environmental Reporting Bill. The reason I am disappointed is that this was the opportunity for New Zealand to not just catch up but be ahead of the game. We could have again been a world leader in terms of environmental reporting. We have lagged a long way behind in this space and the original Minister for the Environment who drafted this bill the Hon Amy Adams took a lot of time to praise herself in introducing this legislation. The Hon Nick Smith is now responsible for it and it is my view that they deserve some credit for introducing the Environmental Reporting Bill—there was a gap in what we did as a nation—but to totally undermine the integrity of such a good move is foolish.Government members have had an opportunity throughout the hearings at the Local Government and Environment Committee. They know what the submissions said in regard to who sets the topics for environmental reporting and it is my view that they have displayed an arrogance and been completely out of touch with what people who are concerned about the environment in New Zealand and internationally would like to see in this legislation. I urge the Minister to consider the opportunity that he now has before him to accept amendments to this legislation so that the whole of Parliament can back him as a world leader and say: “We’ve listened and we’ve got it right.” Up until now he has not been able to do that and I think that is a real disappointment. It is an opportunity that I think we have lost.There is no integrity in a system that has the Minister for the Environment responsible for setting the topics that are then reported publicly. Holding the Government to account and being able to genuinely measure our progress on issues that are about as serious as you can you get should be something that is without challenge. The Minister should be able to stand up and say: “This is what we have achieved.” This is what the Minister would be able to say but now every time the Minister gets up to crow about any progress in environmental reporting the obvious criticism which he could avoid but is choosing not to will be: “Well of course you’ve made progress in that regard in that domain; that is why you chose that topic to have reported against.” Why would any sensible Minister leave himself open to that criticism when the rest of Parliament is saying: “Change it and you will have total support of the Parliament for this legislation.”? So I do not really understand why a Minister would just act in such an arrogant way and demonstrate how out of touch he is with what people wanted. It is not a scandal; it is just a gross disappointment.I just want to move on to noting Supplementary Order Paper 92 which my colleague Su’a William Sio has put forward. Again I think this gives the Parliament of New Zealand the opportunity to really put its mark on its support for and its concern about what is happening in the broader Pacific. The amendments that Su’a William Sio is wanting to move relate to “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts” not just on New Zealand’s state of the environment which is the primary purpose of this bill but on “the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems and its people.” I think they are very good amendments. They amend clauses 7 and 10. Again I would say to the Minister let us understand that environmental concerns should be above party politics. We should have more genuine debate and discussion on issues that threaten the livelihood and well-being of people around the world. If there is any space in this Parliament for working together I would have thought it was in this space.I also want to commend and support Green Party member Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper 87. Again it amends clause 7. It looks like quite a simple amendment but I think it adds a depth to the original intent. It certainly does not change it but it gives more relevance and depth to those provisions in terms of the domain reporting. The amendments that Eugenie Sage is proposing to clause 10 add the words “and analyse” after “describe”. Again it does not change the intention but I think it shows an understanding and a reflection of what was heard during the select committee process. This amendment reflects the positive contribution that submitters made to that process and some members’ understanding of it. I think the Minister probably would be inclined to support that sort of amendment. It does not detract it does not change the focus and it certainly does not get him into any challenge with regard to domain-setting but it adds a depth to it that I think is very useful.As I said at the outset this bill really could have been the opportunity for New Zealand to gain its rightful place as a world leader on the international scene in terms of environmental issues. We certainly have been there in the past. In recent times we have slid behind and I think that is to our shame. It is to the regret of most citizens of New Zealand. It is though an opportunity that has been missed first of all by the Hon Amy Adams and now by the Hon Nick Smith. I urge them and their Cabinet colleagues to reflect on the simple amendments that have been proposed to the primary disagreement in this legislation which is around the integrity of the topics that are reported against. Who sets the topics and how can the public of New Zealand have faith that these are genuine reports about the state of our environment? If the Minister were able to agree to those proposals it would be a very good day for democracy and for the New Zealand Parliament. It would be a very good day for environmental reporting. Actually the Minister would then be able to take all the credit and crow about it.As I said in my previous call it seems very puzzling to me that the Minister who on the scale of things I have to say is committed to progressing environmental issues—why would the Minister leave himself so vulnerable to such obvious criticism when by agreeing to amendments to this legislation at this Committee stage he could remove all that opposition? He would become a bit of a star in the environmental reporting space in New Zealand. We might not praise him too loudly but he would deserve praise if he put back into the system some integrity in the reporting and at the moment that is missing. So there are amendments that provide that opportunity. There are amendments that I have referred to already that add depth rather than change the meaning of some of the specific clauses particularly clauses 7 and 10 and there is a new Supplementary Order Paper from Su’a William Sio that has been tabled which I think really puts another level of potential leadership in the New Zealand Parliament’s space. That is to look at not just the obligations that we should have as New Zealanders in the environmental reporting on how our environment is but also the impacts on our Pacific neighbours.So I would really like to be saying that Labour supports this bill. It was a space that needed to be filled—I support environmental reporting. We are not able to support the bill because the Ministers have taken out the independence and integrity that is required for us to have confidence that this will not be manipulated for political gains. I am not accusing the Minister in the chair of doing that. It could be by any Minister who has this portfolio. A simple amendment could remove that criticism. It could give this reporting the integrity that it needs and give the citizens of New Zealand confidence that we are prepared to challenge ourselves.We are prepared as a Parliament to look at all the issues that we should be monitoring in environmental reporting not just the ones that work for the benefit of the Minister. So it is an opportunity that should have been taken up. It is legislation that in theory should be supported I think by all parties in this Parliament. But it is an opportunity that has been lost because I think the Ministers have had an arrogant attitude. They have been out of touch with where the public of New Zealand is going. I urge them to reconsider and hopefully support the amendments to give the bill the integrity it needs.