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:4884. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Thank you Mr Chairman. I think that that was an exceptionally wise choice. I look forward to hearing my colleague Stuart Nash’s contribution on the conclusion. I am speaking to clauses 1 and 2 of the Environmental Reporting Bill. Clause 1 is just the title of the bill and clause 2 is the commencement.I want to pick up on the proposal that Dr Megan Woods made in her contribution and that is to replace the name of this bill the Environmental Reporting Bill with an alternative. In my view the “Lost Opportunity Environmental Reporting Bill” would be appropriate and I say that for three reasons. The lost opportunities in this bill actually sadden me because it is a bill I would have been very enthusiastic about supporting.The first lost opportunity is the one that has been predominant in the conversation in regard to clause 18 and that is the lost opportunity for independent environmental reporting. That key element in the division in this Parliament about the nature and progress of this bill should be reflected in the title of the bill. I know that independence in the reporting of the Government’s achievement and of the country’s achievement is a risk. I note that the current Minister in charge of this bill recently used that exact term “a risk” in relation to democracy in Canterbury when he talked about the possibility of his twice-broken promise and commitment to the people of Canterbury to restore democracy. The Hon Nick Smith said: “I won’t restore democracy in Canterbury because it’s too much of a risk.” Actually the risk in independent environmental reporting is accepted but I think that it is a risk that a Government that is courageous and wants to demonstrate leadership should take. This Government did not take that risk and did not take the opportunity and therefore the phrase “lost opportunity” should be properly reflected in the title of this bill.The second lost opportunity is not as significant in terms of integrity but I think it is a lost opportunity in terms of a message that this Parliament could have sent. If the whole of our Parliament had agreed and supported the Environmental Reporting Bill because it had independent topics set then we could have sent a very clear message to New Zealanders about the values we hold in terms of our environment and the standards we want to see progressed. Instead we have a divided Parliament and unfortunately a very closely divided Parliament on this bill. Again therefore it is a second lost opportunity which I think should be reflected in the title.The third lost opportunity which again I think should be reflected in the title is the opportunity that was provided to this House by the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Su’a William Sio. That is in terms of our recognition of the impact that New Zealand’s activities have on our broader neighbours in the Pacific and our interest in supporting our neighbours in the Pacific by saying we are going to recognise not only environmental progress in New Zealand but the impact that has on our Pacific neighbours. Many of our Pacific neighbours look to New Zealand and to Australia—and hopefully New Zealand ahead of Australia—in terms of the support we can give them particularly against the impact of climate change. I know that the recently highly regarded scientist Paul Foster-Bell a list MP from the capital sees himself in a different aspect in the review of his scientific capabilities. He goes against the entire scientific community. He said that our contribution to climate change—economic social and financial—was negligible in the Pacific. That is what he said—“negligible”. I think we have lost an opportunity to provide leadership in this space and that is why I think that that lost opportunity should be reflected in the title of this bill.In terms of the commencement date the current bill says: “This Act comes into force on the earlier of the following: (a) a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council”—then it goes on to say—“(and 1 or more orders may be made bringing different provisions into force on different dates):” and that really hides what is one of the key elements of this legislation in that the Ministers can bring in by Order in Council the actual topics that are going to be determined under this bill.