Dyson Ruth: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:707;Page:4876. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Normally I am very pleased to be able to speak particularly on a bill such as this one. But it is a really big disappointment to me that as we see New Zealand finally break through into the area of environmental reporting the key issue that would give this reporting integrity—and that is the independence of the topics that are chosen—has been just cast aside by both Ministers actually who have been responsible for this bill and we are left with this division in Parliament which I think is unnecessary and could have been easily resolved.It would have given a great message to New Zealanders that we were very clear about our responsibility in terms of tracking—deciding you know across the environmental impact area—what issues we were doing well in what issues we were doing poorly in and where we needed to make more progress and how. But instead we are left with that key issue of division which is that the Minister regardless of whether it is a National-led Government or a Labour-led Government is able to interfere and have political influence over what topics are reported. That totally undermines the integrity and the value of a really important system—what could have been an excellent system.So I am really disappointed to not be able to support this bill because I think the theory of it was excellent: that we would have environmental reporting so that we can see as a nation how we are doing on different environmental topics. But instead we have ended up with a reporting system that is very liable to be accused of being a jack-up. You know a Minister will come under considerable scrutiny and I think New Zealanders will lack the confidence in the system that I wish they were able to be confident in.We have had some interesting contributions during the earlier part of the debate and I want to particularly refer to some of the earlier contributions that have been made around my colleague Su’a William Sio’s Supplementary Order Paper 92 which I think is one that the Government should support and I hope other parties in the Parliament will as well. It looks at environmental reporting and the impact on New Zealand what difference different topics are making in terms of New Zealand and it takes that one step further. For me this Supplementary Order Paper 92 actually sets a leadership goal for New Zealand in terms of our impact on our Pacific neighbours. It alters clause 7(2) by replacing “standards.” in paragraph (b) with “standards; and” and then inserting “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems and its people.” Likewise in clause 10 it replaces “standards.” with “standards; and” and then inserts “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems and its people.”I want to first of all acknowledge the contribution Kris Faafoi made in this debate and add my condolences to those that he expressed. It is a very good opportunity for New Zealand to show other Pacific neighbours that we understand the impact of such significant issues as climate change but of other impacts as well and that we are prepared to stand up and take a leadership role and look at how our activities impact on our Pacific neighbours.Paul Foster-Bell who is a National list member of Parliament said that he thought New Zealand’s economic and financial contribution to Pacific Islands climate change is negligible. I think that was a very interesting contribution to make. Therefore he dismissed my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper because he said—he is now an internationally renowned scientist apparently—our economic and financial contribution to Pacific Islands climate change issues is negligible and therefore we do not need this Supplementary Order Paper. I think that was a really disappointing contribution to make on an issue that is not a passing one. It is not a minor one. It could affect the very life and livelihood of some of our Pacific neighbours and I think we need to take the issue more seriously. I know that people in affected Pacific countries do and they have always looked to New Zealand and to Australia for leadership on environmental—