Dyson Ruth: Environmental Reporting Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Environmental Reporting Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:7055. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I say that I am really disappointed that at this final stage of the legislation Labour is still not able to support it. I think it would have been a really great move for every single party in this Parliament to have been able to vote in favour of the bill because the intention the framework of the bill is certainly sound. The devil is in the detail and that is where we have the problem with it.Can I commend the Hon Amy Adams who was the Minister who originally brought this legislation to Parliament. It is my view that she recognised the gap that we have in our system. We do not have environmental reporting standards and we do not have any public accountability for the state of our environment. She recognised that deficiency and sought to address it and then that same cause was taken up by the Hon Nick Smith.I also want to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am not a permanent member of that select committee but I did sit on it during much of the deliberation on this bill and I think that the members of that committee worked hard to ensure that the concerns of the submitters were heard and understood. In all but one incident they were responded to and that is the one instance that both the Green Party and Labour expressed concern about in their minority views when this bill came back to the House.For me it is even more frustrating because this is a lost opportunity. We all know that we were lacking in environmental reporting. We have had only two state of the environment reports done in New Zealand in the last 50 years both quite recently. They highlighted actually the need for more regular reports on the state of our environment so that we can all monitor what is happening. We all care about the environment. It is hard to say whether it is going well or not and then to develop robust public policy if we do not have reporting. It is impossible for our non-governmental organisations—our community and voluntary organisations—that work so tirelessly for environmental causes to be able to say that what they are doing is making a difference and having a positive impact if again there are no measurements.The most important thing about measurements though is that people trust them and that people can rely on them to be sound. You have to have evidence that is independent and evidence that is based on science and in this legislation we have missed that opportunity. I know that there have been a number of attempts to get the Minister to just consider that point. He was dismissive of it in his third reading contribution and I think he is better than that actually. I think he is probably a bit irritated that he was not able to get his Cabinet colleagues to agree to changes in the legislation. He demonstrated earlier an understanding of the frustration that parties on this side of the House felt about the lost opportunity but he then dismissed it in his third reading speech.We should have independent environmental reporting so that not just in New Zealand but internationally we can hold our heads up and say that we know this is evidence-based and that we know it is independent—that there has been no political tainting of this in order to make a particular Minister or a particular party leading the Government look good. I do not think that either the Hon Nick Smith or the Hon Amy Adams had that in mind when they developed and progressed this legislation but we cannot say that their personal integrity would be enough to carry the debate in New Zealand or internationally. We should have been able to send a clear message from this Parliament that every single member cares about environmental reporting and thinks that it is something that we should have in our legislation.I suppose the other lost opportunity that is very sad and it has been highlighted by my colleague Su’a William Sio in his earlier contribution is that this was also an opportunity for New Zealand to show leadership amongst our Pacific neighbours who are the most threatened of any countries by climate change. We have done nothing. So when they look to Australia and New Zealand for leadership on these issues they are going to be so disappointed. This was another chance that we had to say that we care not just about the impact of decisions made in New Zealand on our environment but also about the impact of decisions made in New Zealand on the environment in the Pacific. That would have been not just a good move in terms of actually monitoring the actions that we take but also a clear signal to Pacific countries that we care enough about them to consider our actions and to put it in legislation so that we can be monitored against those actions.As I said at the beginning this was a bill that I think started out with a lot of hope. It did fill a gap in our legislation that needed to be filled but it has been a lost opportunity. With just a few changes to the provisions in clause 18 all parties in this Parliament could have agreed to this bill but that was not to happen. So I hope that in the future we are able to get better progress on this and that we can truly have robust standards of reporting.Debate interrupted.