Foster-Bell Paul: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3347. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Just before I address the issue at hand in this second reading debate the Environmental Reporting Bill I would like to add my voice to the congratulations that have already been offered in this House to Mr David Wilson who is taking up the position of Clerk of the House. Last week I travelled to Kota Kinabalu Sabah state in Malaysia to attend a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. One of the focuses there was the importance of the role of the Clerk in good governance and transparency in a democracy such as ours. So well done to Mr Wilson for taking on that very important position.Turning to the matter at hand the Environmental Reporting Bill firstly I would like to congratulate the Minister Dr Nick Smith. The Hon Dr Smith has been a longstanding and very passionate advocate for the environment for conserving our endangered species—in fact all New Zealand indigenous species—and for advancing sensible and pragmatic policies that allow us to continue to have economic growth and a robust economy in New Zealand to provide for those goods and services and lifestyle that we would like to have as a country whilst balancing that against the need to make sure we have clean air and water and sensible regulations in place to protect species and that environmental lifestyle that we also value here in New Zealand.As part of that legacy that Dr Smith has this bill fits in perfectly. It is a very credible piece of legislation to bring us in line with the majority of the other OECD countries that have some form of environmental reporting regime. I have to say sitting on this side of the House and hearing some of the previous contributions from the Opposition that it is with a sense of irony—in fact it is a little bit rich—that I hear that this is an inadequate measure given that in 9 years of the previous Government nothing was done to advance an environmental reporting regime of this nature. Similarly we have had many comparisons made so far in this debate between environmental reporting and financial reporting which was implemented in the early 1990s to ensure that we did not have another situation whereby the population of New Zealand was misled as to the finances of the country going into an election. I think that is a very valid comparison to make.If the members across the other side of the House were serious in their concerns about aspects of this legislation they would note that the legislation in the financial area does provide exactly the same degree of independence for officials in terms of what is chosen to be reported on in that area. It would not be useful or helpful for the people of New Zealand for members of this House or for the functioning of our democracy for instance if Treasury or the Reserve Bank or other financial agencies of State were to branch off into weird and wonderful and bizarre areas of financial academic interest and report those at great expense to the taxpayer rather than those core pieces of important information that the people of New Zealand need to know.Similarly it would be equally strange to empower officials to be making expensive decisions around what areas of the environment should be reported on and this piece of legislation—Dr Megan Woods: Read the bill.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —contains very clear guidance. I have read the bill Dr Woods. You may interject across the House with the regularity of the world’s most tedious metronome but I am here to say that we have in the bill very clearly laid out the five domains that the public of New Zealand need to know about and certainly members on this side of the House are interested in—that is air land fresh water atmosphere and climate—and noting that our climate change reporting is covered elsewhere as well.On aspects of the climate such as particulates in the air we have heard recently a very interesting report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that actually demonstrates the need to have legislation of this sort that will futureproof. There is no point in locking in a reporting regime that is based on old science that is based on the old levels of particulates given that we know now that when it comes to dust from building sites or particulates that may come out of the petrochemical industry emissions from our vehicles and fireplaces etc. it is the very small nano-sized particles that are actually the most dangerous to human health and most injurious to the environment.That is just one small example of how science has evolved and why we need legislation that is futureproofed and will give us some assurance into the future that we can report in a sensible fashion and in a useful way but also in a cost-effective way given the significant investment of taxpayers’ money that goes into commissioning any of the reports in these areas.I would like to turn now to some of the definitions we have actually used because I think this is quite pertinent so that we know we are getting reports on these five domains on a 6-monthly rotational basis that will be useful. The air domain—the clean air that we value in this country—means the domain surrounding the earth is composed of gases vapours and particulates. We have heard some gases and vapours from the other side of the House but those that we are concerned about on this side are the variety that make our environment good and healthy to live in so that we can breathe clean air and so that our species that depend on levels of gases and vapours as they are now can continue to survive given recent reporting around some of the scientific challenges that those species face in terms of climate change.The biodiversity that we are talking about is the living organisms and ecological complexes. These are very broad categories; they are broadly defined. We are not talking merely about individual animals but we are talking about diversity within species and the relationships between groups of species and their ecosystems. In terms of the climate we are talking about meteorological conditions and variations solar radiation temperature levels humidity clouds precipitation atmospheric pressure and wind. These environmental conditions that can be impacted upon by human activity and I for one am by no means a denier of climate change being an anthropogenic factor. That is something that human activity has influenced. It is important that we keep that broad definition here in that regard.In terms of the freshwater domain we are talking not only about the physical water—the rivers—but all the animals vegetation and structures associated with our rivers. So far in the last few weeks on the Local Government and Environment Committee we have heard about the long-finned eel the tuna as Māori may call it and the challenges that we face in accurately measuring but also understanding that population of important creatures—which Māori regard as a taonga; not simply as a source of food or as an interesting feature to put in an aquarium but actually as a treasure of their people—to make sure that they are preserved and protected. So that is just one example again of the sorts of domain reporting that would be useful rather than having officials launch off into new interesting and innovative areas at great expense to the public purse.One area that my colleague Nuk Korako may address later but that I just wanted to perhaps presage before he got on to it was the amendment that the committee has suggested to clause 4A in the bill the “Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi” clause. We have suggested a change there to take into appropriate account the Treaty of Waitangi and to provide for Te Ao Māori to be an impact category when we are preparing the synthesis and domain reports and to ensure that the reports are informed by a Māori perspective. That is something that we on this side of the House do consider to be important. I think there was a rather spurious contribution from Su‘a William Sio before about how Māori perhaps were better stewards or guardians of the environment. Actually as a person of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa descent I am not entirely sure that we can talk about being better or worse but I can say that we have perhaps different perceptions among Māori and other New Zealanders as to the meaning and the importance and the ways to manage the environment better.So for that reason I am happy to see that we have under clause 4A(b) required consultation with iwi authorities before regulations pursuant to this legislation are made. I think that is a positive change and a useful amendment and evidence that the committee has worked hard on this and come up with some useful contributions. Thank you very much.