Graham Kennedy: Offices of Parliament Address to Governor-General 
Graham Kennedy: Offices of Parliament Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:662;Page:10462] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to address this motion which the Green Party is of course prepared to support. Generally we believe that these three agencies the Audit Office the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment all do excellent work. They have a special role to play as Offices of Parliament. They are independent of the executive branch of government and they are in fact offices of this legislature which is why we in the Officers of Parliament Committee get to determine their budget as opposed to the Minister of Finance doing so. That is as it should be. 
When we look at the three budgets—not that there is any inherent reason to compare them—it is noteworthy to see that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment receives a small budget. It is $2.6 million in the forthcoming year compared with $8.6 million for the Office of the Ombudsmen and in fact compared with $61.7 million for the Audit Office. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment not only has a small budget but has a small staff: only 15 full-time people. So one has to ask with the greatest of respect for the individual competence of Dr Jan Wright and her colleagues just how much can be undertaken to fulfil that office’s role important though it is. 
When I look at the four statutory functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment I find two in particular attend to our interests: the first and third functions. The first function is to determine whether the current environmental laws are working adequately and the third one is to advise the Parliament and the Government on environmental issues. Well of course that third remit produces different effects. It is one thing to advise the Parliament but it is another thing to advise the Government. The Parliament debates matters and the Government decides on them. So the advice which may be the same that goes to both Parliament and the Government may end up having a different outcome. In fact one could legitimately ask how much notice is taken—at least by the Government—of the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We could look at climate change to see an example of that. 
In the annual report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment dated 30 June 2009 the parliamentary commissioner acknowledges that “climate change is the environmental challenge that dwarfs all others.” Yet the parliamentary commissioner made eight recommendations in her submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee in October last year. They were very important recommendations to the Government pertaining to the proposed legislation. I take this opportunity to read them out. The first is that the allocation of free carbon credits should be granted only if there is a genuine reason for it and that the reasons should be stated publicly for each particular activity. The second is that New Zealand should not align itself with Australia’s proposed scheme—and that issue is of considerable pertinence to us today. The third is that a cap on the number of carbon credits freely allocated is vital in order to create the right incentives and reduce fiscal risk for the Government and policy uncertainty for business. The fourth is that the phase-out of free carbon credits is far too slow. The fifth is that the allocation to the agriculture sector should be reviewed. The sixth is that transparency should be increased particularly regarding allocations. The seventh is that the allocation provided to protect competitiveness should be reassessed more regularly than 5-yearly. The eighth and final one is that the provisions that are meant to reduce the negative impact of the emissions trading scheme on the tree weed problem should be strengthened. 
Those eight different recommendations were made to the Government in accordance with the statutory functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Which of those eight were adopted by the Government? I stand to be corrected but my understanding would be none. So one could perhaps conclude that there might be some merit in having a budgetary line item—not necessarily tucked into the budget for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment because one would need it to be independent of that office—to determine how much general advice from the parliamentary commissioner to the Government has in fact been adopted. 
I will draw one more issue to the attention of this House. True to the principles of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment members will find in its annual report that the office does in fact produce its own carbon footprint for analysis. It emitted 15.8 tonnes of carbon emissions over the last year which was a slight decrease on the amount in the year before that. That I think also posits a question for the attention of this House: should it be the case that Government departments—the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment not being a Government department—also produce their carbon footprint for scrutiny and analysis by the House or by the public? We remember that the previous Government had a scheme which I think was called Govt³ in which the three lines of sustainability—environmental social and economic—were to be scrutinised Government department by department. The present Government saw fit to abolish that scheme in March of last year. My question is why? Would it not have been in order for Government departments to continue to provide that information? Certainly the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is setting out its own model in that area. 
Finally I note in the context of the good work that the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment does its latest report to the OECD which was only about a week or so ago. I noticed on page 39 of that report entitled  
How clean is New Zealand? Measuring and reporting on the health of our environment 
 a recommendation that the Government should at least advance national environmental reporting legislation. The Green Party strongly supports that recommendation from the parliamentary commissioner. I personally shall be exploring I hope in dialogue with the Government ways in which the idea of sustainability indicators can be produced and integrated into Government legislation. 
With those words I endorse the motion and pay tribute to the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and to the other two independent bodies for the work that they do. Thank you.