Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 22 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12753. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour)to theMinister for the Environment: How does the Minister intend to maintain independence of environmental reporting in her recently announced changes to that process?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment):Firstly to clear up misconceptions there is no process to change as there has never to date been any legislative requirement for state of the environment reporting. We are introducing for the time legislatively mandated environmental reporting to be produced with the Government Statistician to provide assurance that it is independent. Its role is outlined in the Statistics Act and it has the legal responsibility for oversight of the methods and timing of the publication of statistics. This process is used in other countries for their environmental reporting and works very well here for the production and release of the economic development indicators. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment will also provide an important role in assuring the quality of the reporting by providing independent commentary on any aspect of the framework. She will have a legislative mandate to provide analysis of the environmental data and reports identification of trends and a discussion of implications and responses.Hon Maryan Street: Who will decide what is to be measured for reporting purposes and how such things will be measured in this new reporting regime and how will independence be maintained by those bodies notwithstanding the comments just made about the statistician who will process information rather than gather it or measure things?Hon AMY ADAMS: Let me assure the member that the intention is that the framework what it will cover the domains that must be reported and the indicators that must be reported on will be set out either in the primary legislation or the regulations made under it. Other than that primary or tertiary legislation there will be no ability for Ministers to intervene within it. The work of completing a framework beyond those legislative bases will be developed and controlled by a project board made up of a working party from the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician. They will have joint responsibility for the design of the framework within the bounds of the legislative framework passed the measurement and the collection of data the compilation of the reports and the final production and sign-off of them. There will be a clear delineation between the role of the executive and the roles of the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician ensuring the report’s independence for the first time.Hon Maryan Street: When did National’s policy on independent environmental reporting change from Nick Smith’s cast-iron commitment to 5-yearly reporting in 2011 to the Minister’s recent statement?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well I can certainly acknowledge the fact that I have taken a paper to Cabinet seeking to change from 5-yearly reporting to 3-yearly reporting. I would have thought that most members would welcome that change. It has always been our view that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has a role to play in environmental reporting and we believe the framework that we have developed allows her the most scope to ensure that she can comment without restriction and without legislative fetter on any aspect that she considers necessary. In that respect I certainly noticed the comment of one commentator who noted that having the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment compile the reports completely would be impractical and expensive and it is one of the few times I find myself in agreement with the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Maryan Street: Given the repeated references to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in her preceding answers is she concerned by the statement of that independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the Government’s change of policy on environmental reporting was “a bit of a surprise” because she had been preparing for the job for years and “It’s been in party policy in two elections and I had always been expecting it ...”?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well I am also very mindful of the comments that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has made on a number of occasions around whether her office would be the appropriate place to carry out the work—both in 2010 and as recently as in her recent speech to the Environmental Defence Society conference where she talked about the fact that even with extra resources preparing such a report could incur an opportunity cost. There could potentially be less ability to undertake the investigations and provide the advice that is the fundamental work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. So I do believe that we have reached the right balance between the appropriate roles and I find it somewhat sanctimonious of the Labour Party to be criticising the independence of this reporting given that it was the only Government to have ever interfered with the production of an environment report.Hon Trevor Mallard: Pursuant to the answer to the second supplementary question did she inform her Cabinet colleagues of David Salisbury’s intention to provide consulting services to the oil and gas sector before her colleagues approved her offer of his appointment to the Environmental Protection Authority?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well all conflicts of interest are very carefully discussed and disclosed. That would have been the process in that instance.Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a 29 May email from the Ministry for the Environment to the Hon Amy Adams’ office indicating that Salisbury intended consulting for the oil and gas sector and that this is a conflict.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did she not note in her 10 June Cabinet paper that David Salisbury intended to provide consulting services to the oil and gas sector while serving—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are dealing with supplementary questions to question No. 7. It is about environmental reporting and the independence thereof. Both the previous supplementary question and the question the member is starting—because I have got something on a completely different topic about the Environmental Protection Authority.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member is making but in a subsequent supplementary question which was quite in order the Hon Maryan Street asked when the change of policy occurred. The answer was that it was when it went through a Cabinet process. So I think there was a clear connection then and the question remains.Hon Trevor Mallard: Shall I start that one again? Why did she not know—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will cease yelling out at the Speaker that that ruling was ridiculous. The Hon Trevor Mallard can now start his supplementary question for the third time.Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did she not note in her 10 June Cabinet paper that David Salisbury intended to provide consulting services to the oil and gas sector while serving on the Environmental Protection Authority; and does she believe her paper enabled herCabinet colleagues to “… make collective decisions based on sound information.” as required by paragraph 5.36 of the Cabinet Manual?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well I am afraid I would have to check the veracity of those quotes that the member is referring to. Given the scope of the primary question I did not come to the House prepared to answer detailed questions about a Cabinet paper relating to appointments to the Environmental Protection Authority in responding to a question on environmental reporting which is quite a different matter.Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table an extract from the Minister’s 10 June 2013 Cabinet paper where in the possible conflicts of interest section for David Salisbury she states: “None identified.”Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the letter from the Minister to David Salisbury released to me by her and described by the Minister in a 17 June 2013 email as Environmental Protection Authority appointments draft appointment letters andGazette notice where she appoints Salisbury to the Environmental Protection Authority effective immediately.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a fourth document. It is an extract from the Hon Amy Adams’ 10 June Cabinet paper where she advises her Cabinet colleagues that “I can confirm that appropriate inquiries concerning—Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is enough information there for the House to decide. Leave is sought to table a further extract from that Cabinet paper. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she write to David Salisbury on or shortly after 17 June 2013 appointing him to the Environmental Protection Authority “effective immediately” and asking him to complete a disclosure of interest form saying that this should “be completed before you attend the EPA and any conflicts … discussed at the meeting”; if so why did she state in the 10 June Cabinet paper regarding that appointment: “I can confirm appropriate inquiries concerning conflicts of interest—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can that possibly be a valid supplementary question to question No. 7? I note your comment that my colleague the Minister for the Environment did make reference to Cabinet but to take it from the point that somehow in reference to Cabinet you can then ask any supplementary question on any element of a Minister’s role is I think not reasonable. If the member wants to pursue this line of very specific questioning he should set down a formal oral question.Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need any assistance. Although I appreciate the point the honourable Minister is making the question is in order. I have already ruled that so for the Minister to question that he is questioning the ruling I have given. It is now quite within the rights of the Minister when she answers the question to simply say: “I do not have that detailed information.” That is quite a satisfactory answer. I agree thatthe detail now being required would be difficult for a Minister to have in light of the original primary question but I do not rule the question out of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: I had not quite finished. Shall I start again?Mr SPEAKER: I think there is little choice but to do that.Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she write to David Salisbury on or shortly after 17 June 2013 appointing him to the Environmental Protection Authority “effective immediately” and asking him to complete a disclosure of interest form and that this should “be completed before you attend your next meeting of the EPA and any conflicts should be discussed at that meeting”; if so why did she state in the 10 June Cabinet paper regarding the Environmental Protection Authority appointments and reappointments: “I can confirm that appropriate inquiries concerning conflicts of interest have been carried out in accordance with the State Services Commission guidelines to identify any conflict of interest.”?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well I would have to check the specifics of what the member is quoting from but what I can tell the member is that it is quite appropriate that there would be a multi-stage process to identification of conflicts of interest. They are certainly worked through through the early stage of appointments and after people are appointed there is still an ongoing obligation on them as there is on Ministers to identify and continually update their conflict of interest status. So it is entirely appropriate that both situations would have occurred: an investigation during the appointment process and then an ongoing statement of continuing obligations of anyone appointed.