Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEnvironmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4870. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Environmental Reporting BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 23 June.Part 2 Environmental reporting(continued)KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is an honour to take a call on Part 2 of the Environmental Reporting Bill and that will become a bit more apparent as I continue through my speech. I do want to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 92 under the name of Su’a William Sio which seeks to make amendments to clauses 7 and 10 and in a nutshell that is by inserting within the bill provisions to include the state of New Zealand’s economic environmental activities and the impacts on the Pacific region climate ecosystems and its people. I think that is a very important addition to this piece of legislation and one that I hope that the Government will consider because it is not just the environment of New Zealand as we know it but also of our Pacific neighbours and some of those Pacific nations that New Zealand has responsibility for.As I mentioned it does include a responsibility for this nation to take into account the Pacific’s climate and its ecosystems and I would like to take this opportunity if it is OK to pay tribute to someone from the Tokelau islands who passed away in the last week and who used to be the Faipule or leader of the atoll that my parents came from Fakaofo—that is Foua Toloa. He was as I say the leader of the Tokelauan atoll of Fakaofo. He also served on the Global Ocean Commission and he crusaded throughout his life in dedication to the health and well-being of the Tokelau islands around the environmental economic and social stability of that nation. I think the measure that has been posed by Su’a William Sio will be very well looked upon by Foua who passed away this time last week. To ensure within this Environmental Reporting Bill some kinds of measures to make sure that we can look after the Pacific is something that I think Foua would be very very supportive of.Can I take this opportunity to pass my condolences and the love of this House to his family: to Logo his wife; to their six children; and especially to his brother Luther whom we had been dealing with in the last couple of weeks as Foua fought the last stages of cancer and passed away. The health of the oceans was something that was very big to him and during last year he gave a very good speech to the Global Ocean Commission to make sure that not just this nation but all nations take action to make sure that the health of the Pacific Ocean and other oceans is there for not just our generation but generations to come.I think we are seeing some things happen in the Pacific Islands and the Pacific Ocean that most New Zealanders if they knew what was going on would be very very disturbed by. I think this Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Su’a William Sio makes sure that this piece of legislation does not pertain just to what is going on here in New Zealand but also to its territories and the Pacific Ocean and we have a big interest in what goes on there. So I would hope that members on the other side of the Chamber would take that into consideration because it does take on some of the responsibilities that this nation has to some of those smaller nations and we have talked about them within another piece of legislation—the likes of Tokelau the likes of the Cook Islands and the likes of Niue which we have a very special relationship with. So I would to like to commend my colleague Su’a William Sio for making sure that the environmental activities that we undertake and the economic activities that we undertake are taken into consideration when we look at what is happening in the Pacific and how that is affecting the ecosystems in the Pacific and as I mentioned especially the oceans.This is going to be only a 5-minute speech but I did just want to again pass on this House’s recognition of the contribution that Foua made to the Tokelauan community here in New Zealand and to that of the community the very small community of around 1500 on the three atolls themselves especially when it came to ensuring the environmental future of the oceans around the Tokelau islands and we wish his family all the love and respect that we afford them.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a call on the Environmental Reporting Bill particularly on Part 2. Can I start by just acknowledging the comments from Kris Faafoi and obviously express condolences from this side of the Chamber on his loss—obviously of an advocate for the Tokelauan community.In respect though of the specific Supplementary Order Paper that he raised I certainly hold the view that the priority of this bill is quite rightly New Zealand and should remain New Zealand. The various impact categories that the various synthesis reports and domain reports are to cover as expressed by Part 2 should be focused quite rightly on New Zealand so in that respect I am not swayed that we should widen the scope at this point in time in terms of the enabling legislation to the Pacific Islands and the broader South Pacific community. That said—I think over time as the various synthesis reports are produced every 3 years—who is to say that in the future those synthesis reports might not talk to the interrelationship between the New Zealand environmental position and those of our Australasian and Pacific neighbours? Into the future that may well be a part of the synthesis report.Specifically in respect of Part 2 there are a couple of points that I would like to note. I appreciate that there has been some conversation on this already among members of the select committee. I think the changes to clause 7were useful particularly around providing clarity on the specific impact categories that came from our select committee deliberations. With regard to the previous clause 7(1)(c)(iii) which stated “economic benefits derived from utilising natural resources:” I think it was quite right that submitters to our collective deliberations pointed out that this was the only category that referred to benefits and the new wording that we have in that clause is more neutral. It specifically says that the economy just needs to be one of the categories considered.Also the introduction of Te Ao Māori—the Māori World—view again reflected significant feedback from the submitters to the process: that the language that the original bill used was perhaps not quite as comprehensive as it needed to be in order to capture that particular component and of course we are all pretty comfortable with the new proposed wording.I notice clause 8. It is very good to see the change there in respect of the first synthesis report now being required to be published not later than 3 years after the date of the first domain report. That makes sense. Further on in clause 8(2) we have a clarification of the timing in respect of the first domain report and then that triggers the requirement to have our first synthesis report within 3 years. So I think that is very useful. Under the domain reports in clause 9(2) I think the introduction of the requirement “As soon as is reasonably practicable after the Secretary and the Government Statistician have published a domain report the Ministers must jointly present the report to the House of Representatives.” is also a very helpful addition in terms of transparency and public awareness of the outcomes of these particular reports.In terms of clause 13 we had quite a long debate and discussion ably assisted by officials helping us through this particular challenge on the roles of the Secretary for the Environment and in particular the Government Statistician and on the requirement to ensure the independence of those two through the environmental reporting framework. We had quite a lot of debate about that. A number of submitters wanted to mandate explicitly that the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment seek expert advice. I think that what we have here does enable the Government Statistician to be able to seek that advice. They are able to utilise expertise from other agencies. Certainly I feel that they have enabled through this proposed bill the capacity to be able to get the information that they need. It is certainly my view that clause 14 and the rather explicit duty to act independently provide the adequate safeguards to protect independence for both the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment.We had a significant debate over the original clause 16 “Disclosure of information”. As the select committee has deliberated we have seen a significant change to that clause. Essentially there was a long debate about the ability to be able to disclose information and analysis to the public and about whether that was an open right and obligation all through the process. Clearly we felt that it would be appropriate to have in some part of that process—particularly around untested information that needed to stay protected as they tested their methodology and tested the ultimate conclusions of the report—a requirement for that definition of untested information to stay outside the public domain as the reports were being developed. I think that is a sensible way through. It focuses just on data and statistics and findings that have not been published previously and it does create I think the opportunity to protect the independence and the integrity of environmental reporting and does not hinder access. This untested information is of course time bound and once the publication ultimately becomes public in the public domain then of course the release of that background information is enabled. So this is a particular subset of information that is required to be kept out of the public domain as it is part of pulling together that final report with the integrity and robustness that is required.My last comment relates to clause 18. I appreciate that there has been quite a lot of debate about this but I would like to add my voice to that. Clearly a number of submitters opposed clause 18 as outlined. We have heard some very strong and impassioned views: that Ministers setting topics is incompatible with independent environmental reporting. I am not swayed by that view. I was not at the start and I am still not swayed. In my view it is absolutely appropriate for Ministers to be able to hold a view on the topics for these reports within the tight parameters of the clauses that are listed in clause 18. The topics are outlined. The robust data and statistical methodology is outlined plus there is a significant requirement for consultation. I am simply just not swayed by the view that somehow that is an environment for an overt politicisation of the process. If you move to the specifics particularly around the topics clause 18(2) states that the Ministers must be satisfied “that any—(a) pressure topic or impact topic affects significant areas resources or numbers of people: (b) topic can be measured with robust statistical methods: (c) pressure topic is closely related to any state topic…”.In essence what this is saying is that we have a framework that in my view materially constrains a Minister to be able to focus on signing off or proposing a topic within that framework. Bearing in mind that both the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Statistics have an obligation under this to consult with the Government Statistician the commissioner the public iwi authorities and local authorities that is a very robust obligation on the executive to consult widely on what those topics should be. I have a lot of confidence that ultimately we will get an outcome here that is sensible and that delivers a significant improvement to the reporting on the state of the environment in this country.In conclusion it is worth repeating that this is another step of reform in a Government that has delivered significant reform in the reporting of the environmental state of this country enabling us to have a data-informed data-enriched discussion.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I would agree with the comments of the previous speaker Todd Muller that the Local Government and Environment Committee did improve clause 16. But the fact is that it highlights one of the deficiencies in this bill—that it is the Ministry for the Environment that is going to be responsible for collating the state of the environment information along with Statistics New Zealand. Of course the Ministry for the Environment is primarily a policy agency. It lacks the technical capacity to do this work on state of the environment reporting. It is going to be relying very much on the information that is collected the data that is collected by other agencies such as regional councils Crown research institutes and the like. So that is why in Supplementary Order Paper 87 which is in my name we are proposing a further change to clause 16 that would ensure the information can be withheld by the Government Statistician only if it has been collected exclusively for the purposes of state of the environment reporting and this bill.One of the problems that a lot of the submitters raised was that clause 16 potentially constrains the release of environmental information that other agencies collect. So although the clause has certainly been improved it has not been improved enough and we would encourage Government members to support the Supplementary Order Paper. Given that the Government members voted down the amendments on Part 1 I am not encouraged to think that they will do anything different this time. I think that highlights one of the problems with this Government. It is a Government of “No”. It has rejected Supplementary Order Papers previously. It has highlighted the fact that it does not want to work collaboratively with other parties.The amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 87 were put forward in the spirit of compromise. They were not the major changes that the Green Party wanted to this bill but they were put forward in the hope that across this Parliament we could get a cohesive coherent agreement on this legislation so that it is less vulnerable to changes under future Governments but the Government members have rebuffed that in the voting on Part 1. That is really disappointing when comprehensive reporting on the state of our environment is quite critical to a better understanding so that we get good policy and because the health of the environment contributes majorly to the health of the economy.Another concern that we have about this bill is in relation to clause 18. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said in her 2010 report on state of the environment reporting: “The need for trust and transparency in state of the environment reporting is critical if it is to be taken seriously.” and “In order [for it] to be trusted [that] reporting requires independence accountability and technical capacity.” The history of state of the environment reporting under the Ministry for the Environment has been very stop-start in terms of progress. There was work done between 1996 and 2002 on developing some environment performance indicators but that abruptly stopped in 2002. We have seen one nationwide report in 1997 and another one 10 years later in 2007 with a major chapter missing.If the Ministry for the Environment is going to have responsibility here—rather than the Environmental Protection Agency which has got much more independence and much more technical capacity—then it is going to have to substantially lift its game because the work it has done to date has had major failings in it. That change in environmental performance indicators—the lack of consistency across the country—has been a major shortcoming.One of the other areas of unease and what we have seen when we have had Ministers being involved in agencies that do environmental reporting is a failure to do that work. In Environment Canterbury under elected councillors a comprehensive region-wide state of the environment report was published in 2009. Under commissioners we have seen no region-wide state of the environment report so Cantabrians and New Zealanders generally are kept in the dark about the state of water quality and the decline there. That is one of the other reasons we are concerned by this lack of independence in clause 18—by having the Ministers set the topics for environmental reporting and regulations it lacks the independence required.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I would like to respond to some of the speeches made by the members opposite with regard to clause 18 of the Environmental Reporting Bill and especially the question of independence when it comes to the choosing of topics under that clause. In doing so I would have five questions that I think the people of New Zealand some of whom may be watching this debate should ask themselves in relation to that clause.The first one is why it should be just two Ministers who should choose those topics when clearly much better options exist. I think that is a question that those members on the opposite benches have not properly answered and that I have not heard answered yet. Fundamentally there are two alternatives being put forward both of which seem to me to be better. One is that proposed by Eugenie Sage which would be for the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician to jointly make those decisions. If that was the case we could then guarantee independence and transparency. Alternatively there could actually be a schedule to the Act which would then have to be changed every 3 years. That would not be a bad thing because it would involve the whole of Parliament in doing that and after all every 3 years is not so frequent that it would be impracticable. I think both of those would be superior to what is provided here.The second question I would ask is why those members opposite feel that the regime set up in clause 18 is indeed a robust one. That is a word that they have used and that I have heard several of them use. When you look at clause 18(2) in particular you see that the language used is for example in paragraph (a) of clause 18(2) that the Minister must be satisfied that “significant areas resources or numbers of people:”are involved or that in paragraph (b) any “topic can be measured with robust statistical methods:” and so on. So it comes down to the personal opinion of the Minister as to whether those Ministers are satisfied with those things. How do we know? What will be the backup information provided so that the rest of us can tell whether the conclusions reached by the two Ministers are reasonable in respect of those issues? There is a complete silence as far as those matters are concerned.The third question is whether consultation is a substitute for independent decision-making. I particularly remember Minister Smith commenting: “Don’t worry. It’s all OK because we have in clause 18(3) a provision for consultation.” as though somehow that was a substitute for independent decision-making. Well consultation is not decision making at all. It is simply an obligation to hear and to take into account the views of others. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not in fact decision making and it makes no genuine contribution to the requirement that many of us are concerned about which is genuine independent decision-making. So I say to those members opposite and especially to Minister Smith: you have failed totally to convince me that consultation is in any way a substitute for independent decision-making. I think that the people in the public listening to this debate today would understand exactly what I mean.The fourth question relates to one particular issue that I have not heard members opposite speak about at all. That is the point that this regime talks about which topics Ministers may choose. But they have not talked about the fact that under this regime Ministers could actually decide not to report at all on some topics and would have no responsibility to discuss them or tell people anything about them and we would never know. That is not good enough. I think that one of the most dangerous parts of clause 18 in this whole regime would be for Ministers to simply decide that there is a topic here that they do not want discussed in public and to be reported on and so they will make sure that it does not happen. I think that is one of the big defects in this. The final—STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): This sort of stuff is pretty important. Mr Bishop always has a go at me whenever I say this but this whole thing plays into our global brand of “clean green” and “100% Pure New Zealand” and we need to get this right. The reason this is so important is that it is our unique selling point. It is what we take to the world. It is what allows us to get a premium for a lot of our products. That is why we have to be seen by the world into which we go forth to be getting this right. If it is seen as dictating or prescribing in a way that is not utilising the expertise we have outside of Government agencies then it will just not be taken seriously. That is the real concern I have around this. It should not be hard to get this right.There are a couple of points I would like to pick up on that some of the other speakers mentioned. One of the Government speakers said he felt that the spirit of the Act means that the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment can go out there and utilise outside expertise. But the bottom line is that if the Act does not state that then there is absolutely no mandate to go and do that. So instead of saying “Yes well this is all very well; they can do that because this is what we think the Act allows them to do.”—unless it is stated then it will not be done.I pick up a point that Mr O’Rourke made and that is about consultation. There are a number of cases and there is one I am dealing with in my electorate at the moment where the need to consult is seen as a box-ticking exercise. What happens is there are a whole lot of requirements that have to be achieved before anything can happen and they say “OK we must consult.” and so on and so forth. They go out they set up a meeting you get a few stakeholders come in and they tick that box and say “That is our consultation. Let’s move on to the next thing.” I do not mean to cast aspersions towards the Government Statistician or the Secretary for the Environment and I am not in any way suggesting that they will be devious or they will be negligent in the way they do this. All I am saying is that the guidelines in my view do not provide a strong enough incentive or a robust enough mandate to use the sort of expertise we have out in our community.Let us face facts: there are a whole lot of very very well-educated and highly engaged people who are doing some superb work on our environment and have a whole lot to offer. They may be included in this process. They may be but there is no requirement to include them and I suppose that is where I get a little bit concerned. If I look at clause 13 it says “In producing and publishing an environmental report the Secretary and the Government Statistician must utilise the expertise of the Ministry and Statistics New Zealand.” It would have been quite easy to say “and key stakeholders” even if key stakeholders were listed in an appendix to the Act. Then it could have been done in a way that broughtinto the Act itself a whole lot of people who are as passionate about this as we are.The other thing as well is clause 13(3). I just do not think that this is fantastic drafting. It says: “In deciding under subsection (2) what statistics will be used to measure topics the Government Statistician must …”—so there is a legislative requirement—“follow what he or she believes”—that is a subjective term—“to be best practice principles … and … be satisfied”—which is again subjective—“that the statistics accurately represent the topic they purport to measure.” So you have got some subjective measures with objective requirements there. Again I think that that just leaves things open to interpretation and it is very hard to argue from a legislative perspective that someone has got this right or wrong. If it had been more prescriptive then in fact it would be a lot harder to argue that either the secretary or the Government Statistician had done a role that was outside their mandate.Again clause 15 “Reports to be fair and accurate”: “The Secretary and the Government Statistician must in so far as it is reasonably practicable ensure that all environmental reports published give a fair and accurate representation …”. What happens when we have the term “as it is reasonably practicable” is that again it is just very open to interpretation. So what we may get is the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment saying “This is as much as we can do within the time frame we have got.” and you are going to get others who are as engaged in this if not more so saying “No you haven’t undertaken what we believe is a reasonably practicable process in arriving at your end result.” Again: “reports published give a fair and accurate representation”. I mean again who is going to be the chief arbiter of what is fair and what is accurateespecially in an area again like I say where there are a whole lot of people doing academic research and real-life research? I just think there could have been—[Bell rung]—an ability to provide a lot more information on this. Mr Chair I was waiting for someone else to—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): If you want to take a call you must ask for the call at the time. Ruth Dyson went for the call.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Normally I am very pleased to be able to speak particularly on a bill such as this one. But it is a really big disappointment to me that as we see New Zealand finally break through into the area of environmental reporting the key issue that would give this reporting integrity—and that is the independence of the topics that are chosen—has been just cast aside by both Ministers actually who have been responsible for this bill and we are left with this division in Parliament which I think is unnecessary and could have been easily resolved.It would have given a great message to New Zealanders that we were very clear about our responsibility in terms of tracking—deciding you know across the environmental impact area—what issues we were doing well in what issues we were doing poorly in and where we needed to make more progress and how. But instead we are left with that key issue of division which is that the Minister regardless of whether it is a National-led Government or a Labour-led Government is able to interfere and have political influence over what topics are reported. That totally undermines the integrity and the value of a really important system—what could have been an excellent system.So I am really disappointed to not be able to support this bill because I think the theory of it was excellent: that we would have environmental reporting so that we can see as a nation how we are doing on different environmental topics. But instead we have ended up with a reporting system that is very liable to be accused of being a jack-up. You know a Minister will come under considerable scrutiny and I think New Zealanders will lack the confidence in the system that I wish they were able to be confident in.We have had some interesting contributions during the earlier part of the debate and I want to particularly refer to some of the earlier contributions that have been made around my colleague Su’a William Sio’s Supplementary Order Paper 92 which I think is one that the Government should support and I hope other parties in the Parliament will as well. It looks at environmental reporting and the impact on New Zealand what difference different topics are making in terms of New Zealand and it takes that one step further. For me this Supplementary Order Paper 92 actually sets a leadership goal for New Zealand in terms of our impact on our Pacific neighbours. It alters clause 7(2) by replacing “standards.” in paragraph (b) with “standards; and” and then inserting “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems and its people.” Likewise in clause 10 it replaces “standards.” with “standards; and” and then inserts “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems and its people.”I want to first of all acknowledge the contribution Kris Faafoi made in this debate and add my condolences to those that he expressed. It is a very good opportunity for New Zealand to show other Pacific neighbours that we understand the impact of such significant issues as climate change but of other impacts as well and that we are prepared to stand up and take a leadership role and look at how our activities impact on our Pacific neighbours.Paul Foster-Bell who is a National list member of Parliament said that he thought New Zealand’s economic and financial contribution to Pacific Islands climate change is negligible. I think that was a very interesting contribution to make. Therefore he dismissed my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper because he said—he is now an internationally renowned scientist apparently—our economic and financial contribution to Pacific Islands climate change issues is negligible and therefore we do not need this Supplementary Order Paper. I think that was a really disappointing contribution to make on an issue that is not a passing one. It is not a minor one. It could affect the very life and livelihood of some of our Pacific neighbours and I think we need to take the issue more seriously. I know that people in affected Pacific countries do and they have always looked to New Zealand and to Australia for leadership on environmental—MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I will take that word “leadership” and acknowledge the leadership role this Government is playing in bringing in such a bill around an environmental reporting framework. And it is leadership because all we are hearing from across the floor—it is really about guilt I suppose and embarrassment. Nine years Labour had to bring New Zealand up to an OECD standard of an environmental reporting framework—guilt embarrassment. I mean from the Green Party it is more about envy and resentment that we are—Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think you can probably predict what it is but I do not think he has referred to anything in the bill yet.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sure. Look this is a debate. I ask the member—and all members—to concentrate on the content of Part 2. If a member has not got anything to contribute then there is no need for this Part 2 to continue. I would ask you to concentrate on the substantive matter of Part 2 and focus your attention there.MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much Mr Chair. I would just like to look at clause 7(2)(b). It looks at how we are going to compare New Zealand’s environment through this environmental reporting framework with national and international standards. I think that is right. We are very much in a system now—we are in a global system—and it is right that we are going to benchmark ourselves internationally against other countries. Clause 7(2)(a) is also about the synthesis report looking at the changes to the state of the environment.I am sure many people around this Chamber have been involved in reportingin previous careers. Sometimes it is not exactly about the report at one stage but about looking at multiples of reporting and looking at that variance between the state of the environment and what has changed. I think that measurement that variance will be very important. I think what we need to look at is a common theme as we thematically review the content of these clauses and look at the content and the topics around the state of New Zealand’s environment and the pressures that may be causing or has the potential to cause as well as the impacts that the state of the environment and changes to that state may be having on such things as eco-diversity the economy and public health. So when you look at those three key areas—the state of the environment the pressures and the impacts—it is good to see that that runs through this whole piece of legislation.It shows up under the synthesis report. It also comes up under the domain report. When we hear about this being self-selection from the Minister or Ministers I disagree. The domain reports will come up every 6 months so within a pro rata time frame they will all come up. The domain reports are of air atmosphere and climate fresh water land and marine. So those topics and contents of the state the pressures and the impact on the environment are also included in the regulations in clause 18. So it is great that we will be able to track those three topics throughout the synthesis and the domain reports.I think Mr O’Rourke has touched on the independence but I would disagree with that comment. I think it is very clear and the consultation the Ministers will go through with the Government Statistician the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment the public iwi authorities and local authorities is outlined in clause 18(2) and (3). It is quite right that they will think about the issues and the state of the environment to do with that domain the changes in the state to do with that domain the pressures that are being put on those domains and the impacts of those domains on people’s public health the economy and the ecosystem. So those themes promote accountability and they promote responsibility. It is very much a merging of three quite separate disciplines but we need the synergy going forward of the Secretary for the Environment teamed up with the Government Statistician—I think we all remember our t-tests from university days—as well as the Minister to drive this forward.I also would like to highlight the reference to untested data because I think this is important. We need some protection around untested data. New Zealand’s clean green image and the economy was at risk of—DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): In my last contribution I said that there were five questions that I felt the public should ask themselves about clause 18 of the Environmental Reporting Bill and the regime that that sets out. The fifth one that I wanted to ask was about transparency. The first four had been first why it should be just two Ministers who make the decision; second how robust this regime really is in terms of providing a comprehensive way of reporting on our environment; third whether consultation can really amount to independent decision-making—which it obviously cannot—and fourth about the difficult issue of decisions not to report at all and whether anyone would ever know that. I think those are four very important questions that the public of New Zealand should ask about this section and about the Government’s motives in pushing it forward. What could they possibly be? What has the Government got to hide? What is it that it wants to do other than just make sure that Ministers can secure even more executive power for themselves?We have seen this Government year after year bill after bill issue after issue coming down on the side of giving more executive responsibility to Ministers and having less democracy less transparency and less independent decision-making where it is appropriate in New Zealand. I have not heard any rebuttal of those arguments from the members opposite.But I did want to just finish off with that fifth question that I said the public should ask themselves and that is why we are not seeing much more transparency when it comes to regulations that will prescribe the topics to be covered in synthesis reports and the topics to be covered in domain reports. Of course that is very important because without transparency you do not get public trust and you do not get the public feeling that we have a system with integrity. So it goes right to the root of this particular bill and why we need an environmental reporting system. It has to be one that the public can trust. It has to be one that has integrity. This bill does not deliver it and has not a hope in hell of doing so quite frankly.And what does transparency really mean? I will have to give the members opposite a little bit of a lesson in this because they do not seem to understand. In particular Mr Doocey when I heard his speech did not seem to understand it. They use the word but obviously do not know what they are talking about when they use it. So first of all it means that the background information upon which the decision is made must be clear. It must relate to the decision made. That should be set out and understood by everyone and of course it has to show what the decision is in detail and it has to say why the topics selected were the highest in priority and why others were not. And indeed it has to say which topics that could have been reported on are in fact not going to be reported on. Finally it has to set out what the discussion is and what the reasoning is that led to the decision being made.Those are the sorts of considerations that add up to transparency. Those are the sorts of considerations that people want to know about when they look at what the Ministers are doing in their regulations to decide whether they are the correct decisions or not. That is what transparency means. That is what this bill does not do. It gives executive power to just two Ministers to pass regulations just giving the conclusion just saying: “Here is what we have decided—full stop.” And OK there is consultation and that is a step in the right direction but it is a very very tiny step compared with what is really required for independent decision-making and a transparent regime of decision making. This is not what the public is going to see as a result of this bill.The bill is going to be a failure simply for those reasons. That is a shame because we all want a good regime of environmental reporting. So I could compliment the Government for bringing legislation forward that actually creates a system of environmental reporting but at the same time I would have to say this bill is so defective that there is no way that any responsible party in Opposition could possibly support it.NUK KORAKO (National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 92 in the name of Su’a William Sio to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 10 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Eugenie Sage to Part 2 be agreed to:insert the following new clause:11AGreenhouse gas reportThe Environmental Protection Authority must produce and publish a report no later than 6 months after the commencement of this Act and annually thereafter listing the 100 largest emitters of greenhouse gas in New Zealand.The Environmental Protection Authority must present the report required by subsection (1) to the House of Representatives as soon as practicable after it is published.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clauses 12 13 and 18 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 14 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 16 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to add new clause 19 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Part 2 agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I think that talking to the title of this bill is something that we do need to spend a bit of time on because I would like to have thought that the Labour Party would and could support any piece of legislation called the Environmental Reporting Bill that came before this House—Chris Bishop: So vote for it then.Dr MEGAN WOODS: —given that New Zealand is one of the only countries in the OECD not to have this regime of environmental reporting in play.We are having some calls from the opposite side: “So vote for it.” Well we would dearly like to have been able to vote for this. We would have voted for this legislation if it had been truly independent environmental reporting. In fact we put it to the Government both at the select committee and in the Committee stage in this House that we would indeed vote for this legislation if the Government would agree to the amendments to clause 18—if we would make the changes that meant that we did have independent environmental reporting in this country.This is not any slur on any particular Minister because it is strongly our belief that Ministers on whichever side of the House—Ministers will only ever come from one side of the House I guess—Ministers from whichever party in this House need to have legislative constraints within our legislation to ensure independence. We do not want to be legislating and allowing the potential for political interference.So rather than the Environmental Reporting Bill I think this bill should more rightly be called the “Opportunity Lost Bill” because this is a huge opportunity lost. It is a good thing that New Zealand did turn its attention to putting in place an environmental reporting regime but we did lose the opportunity to do this properly. We have not done this in a way that is going to ensure that we have a robust and independent reporting regime in place that is going to report on the state of the environment and that is going to allow for better environmental outcomes. And for that reason to us it is a huge opportunity lost.I have been sitting in the Chamber throughout I think all of the Committee stage of this bill and I have heard some contributions—some of them more thoughtful than others. One that I thought was a thoughtful contribution from the other side of the House this afternoon was from Todd Muller who sits on the Local Government and Environment Committee. This was in response to the opportunity that my colleague Su’a William Sio put up in terms of New Zealand taking leadership in this region in terms of considering how what we do impacts not only on our environment but on our broader regional environment as well. Su’a and my colleague Kris Faafoi have made compelling cases around what the impact is on the Pacific. Todd Muller said that perhaps this is something we could consider later on in terms of synthesis reports—that this is something we could delay.Here is another example of how this is an opportunity lost. We cannot delay considering the impacts of what New Zealand does in New Zealand on the broader environment of the region and what the impacts are for our Pacific neighbours. We do not have time actually to think: “We’ll put this off until mañana. We’ll put this off until another day.” This is something that we have to confront now. This is something that we do need to take a leadership position on. This is something about which we cannot simply say: “We’ll look at that in the future.”Then we had some quite extraordinary contributions on this. My colleague Ruth Dyson has touched on the contribution from Mr Foster-Bell where he made some extraordinary comments around what the impact is of what New Zealand does on its environment and what its impact regionally would be. So once again we see examples of opportunities that are lost and how we did have the opportunity to do something much better.We also could suggest another name for this bill and it could be the “Not Independent Environmental Reporting Bill”. That is a topic that has been canvassed at length at various stages—at the Committee stage and in the earlier stages in this debate. It is in clause 18 where we sought those amendments around that where we could have fixed this legislation. We could have made this a piece of legislation I believe that did have support across this House. We could have come to a consensus around what good independent robust environmental reporting looked like and we could have had all parties—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry just before we continue—you have the call—the question before us is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part and those are the title and commencement clauses. I am making the point that it is not just the title; it is the title and commencement.Hon Ruth Dyson: That might be her last two calls.Dr MEGAN WOODS: That is right. The commencement is something I am planning on addressing in subsequent calls on this piece of legislation.Chris Bishop: Well that’ll be a cracker. Can’t wait for that one.Dr MEGAN WOODS: I know. Everyone will be eagerly anticipating it. I think that the title of this bill does deserve our consideration because as I was saying this is the “Not Independent Environmental Reporting Bill”. We have canvassed that and we have also indicated how this is a bill that could have had cross-party support and how we could have got there with actually I think some substantial but not huge tweaks.Unfortunately we have a Government that has not been willing to listen to this and that did not listen to the petitioners who came to the select committee and made their very good submissions and we are talking about some people who think long and hard about these issues. We are talking about the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We are talking about the Resource Management Law Association. We are talking about the Environmental Defence Society Fish and Game and Forest and Bird—substantial bodies in New Zealand that give a great deal of thought to these matters. They came to us and said: “Please make sure that this is truly independent environmental reporting because the bill you have in front of you”—and the bill we are now about to pass through its Committee stage—“is not independent environmental reporting.”It saddened me that Government members refused to listen to that and that at every stage of this legislation they have not listened to very good advice about how we could have had a much better piece of legislation. It would have been wonderful to have all parties in this House able to support it and to have all parties in the New Zealand Parliament able to say: “I think it is a good thing that we put in place a robust environmental reporting regime like the rest of the OECD and that we join the ranks of those countries that do that.” But instead what we have here is a dim piece of legislation. It is a dimmer version of what it could have been.When National first came to power it offered us a brighter future. Well here is the dimmer future in this piece of legislation. This is a shadow of what we could have had. This is not a brighter future. This certainly is not living up to that. The Minister in charge of this legislation Nick Smith has been in charge of a lot of things that are not really living up to the brighter future. We could perhaps rename this the “Nick Smith Blunder No. 323 Bill”. That could be another name. The number keeps rising so unless we pass this quickly we will probably be looking at No. 512 in only a few days’ time.What we are seeing is a Minister shepherding this through who should have been listening to the very sage submissions. It was started by Minister Amy Adams who introduced the bill and was then finished off by her successor the Hon Dr Nick Smith who should have listened to those submissions. He should have listened to what the substantial bodies were saying and what their advice was but that was not something he was willing to listen to. Maybe that is because he is quite preoccupied in other portfolios. We do see that particular Minister having to put out fires in other portfolios that he has and that is why I suggested that title. That title is something that I suggested and that is the reason for it.It saddens me that we are in this Chamber debating the Environmental Reporting Bill a bill that is called the Environmental Reporting Bill when it is not everything that it could be when it has not lived up to that name and when really we still have the opportunity for it to become a political instrument of this Government or of any Government. Whoever is in power this legislation allows environmental reporting to become a political instrument.It saddens me that we have the Minister being both poacher and gamekeeper. That is something I think we should avoid in any legislation that we pass in this House. It should just be part of good practice that we set up robust processes so that we do separate out those functions and that we do have someone else making the decisions for solely environmental reasons.If we look at the title the Environmental Reporting Bill that should be the primary driving force around what we choose to report on not what serves the Government of the day whoever that Government may be and what it wishes to report on. The Environmental Reporting Bill is not living up to its name. It is not going to adequately report on the environment.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to call the Hon Ruth Dyson.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.JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I seek leave to correct the votes on behalf of the Māori Party on Supplementary Order Paper 87—all clauses—and Supplementary Order Paper 92—two votes in favour for each.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought to correct the votes. So what would those votes be please?Joanne Hayes: The votes are for Supplementary Order Paper 87 all clauses—two votes in favour—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just one moment. Leave is sought to correct the Māori Party vote on all the votes that were taken on Part 2. Is that correct?Joanne Hayes: Correct—it is just the Supplementary Order Papers.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well there are a number of Supplementary Order Papers. There is No. 92 and there is No. 87 and there is an amendment to insert clause 11A as well.Joanne Hayes: No just the Supplementary Order Papers 87 and 92.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Supplementary Order Papers 87 and 92. Right leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Therefore the votes on those amendments as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 and Supplementary Order Paper 92 will be Ayes 60 Noes 61. The amendments are still lost.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I back up a lot of what my learned colleagues were saying and I think that it is quite rough actually to have a go at Ruth Dyson. She has been a valuable member of the environment caucus in the Labour Party for a hell of a long time and she knows a lot more I suspect than the vast majority on the other side of the Chamber could even hope to know. When we are talking about the commencement date it is slightly unusual I must admit. Normally a bill says “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” But this actually gives a 9-month lead-in period.Dr Megan Woods: Gestation.STUART NASH: A gestation period—is it 9 months on purpose? Do they need to think about it? Do they need to give birth to this bill? The analogies are quite staggering. As Ruth Dyson said the commencement is “by Order in Council”. Therefore Ministers can determine when they are going to do this which again just plays into this whole argument about a lack of independence.When we talk about the name of this bill some very good names have been suggested but I would like to throw a couple more in there if I may. The first is the “Environmental Bitter Pill Bill”. Really this just does not acknowledge that there is a huge depth of competency and expertise in this country which absolutely could have been utilised in terms of making this bill so much better than it is. It would have been very easy. Labour offered a compromise to one clause which would have seen us support this bill and get it on the road and make it happen. Even that was turned down. One clause and we would have got across the line; we would have had the vast majority in Parliament supporting the bill.Another name that I think is quite apt is the “Brand Damage to the Wider Global Environment Bill”. By this I mean—and I talked about this in an earlier speech—that this is what we go to the global market place with: our clean green “100% Pure” image. If we are not seen to be playing that walking the walk then we can actually devalue our global brand to the point where we are not getting the premium on our products that we should be getting. This bill is the sort of thing that goes along that way of devaluing the brand because it is seen by outsiders as not being independent. This is seen as driving a Government agenda as opposed to providing a really objective report on the state of our environment. I suspect that there will be some parts of the environment that will come up with fantastic reports but as we know there will be other parts of the environment that will be a damning indictment of how we have allowed things to drop away over the years and of how we need to fix them. So this really does cut into what it means to be New Zealand and what that brand means and it is a missed opportunity. That is the thing that is so disappointing about this.Another title perhaps could have been the “Government Agenda (Environmental Mismanagement) Bill”. As a number of my colleagues have spoken about this bill is about the Government’s agenda as opposed to what is the right thing to do for New Zealand. And we could have got that across the line if only we had worked together in the way that the people of New Zealand expect us to. This is how legislation is supposed to work in this House: we go into a select committee and work together to come up with a bill that meets the requirements of everyone. Labour put a compromise an alternative on the table and it was rejected. I just do not think that is a great way to work together for something as important as the environment in a country like New Zealand.Another potential title is the “Government Knows Best (Bugger the Rest) Bill”. Again the reason I say that is that I do not think this title the Environmental Reporting Bill does this piece of legislation credit. As mentioned this is the Government’s agenda. This is what the Ministers want to see; it does not necessarily reflect what the wider New Zealand wants to see or needs to see—and that is the important thing. If this is not seen as being objective then it loses a lot of its power and it loses a lot of its credibility and this is where we are going to get into trouble.Another name that this bill could have been called is the “What Could Have Been But Is Now Unseen Environmental Bill”. Again it comes down to the whole notion of independence. I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee even though I would like to have been for this bill because it sounds like it was a fantastic process and there was a fascinating list of submitters that came in. I have looked at some of the submitters and these are experts in their field. This is the thing about MPs: we can never be experts in absolutely everything so we rely on those outside of Parliament to give us advice.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I think the title for the bill could certainly be the “Opportunity Lost Bill” when you have all the other parties in the House supporting a Supplementary Order Paper that will make some constructive changes and the Government rejects it. But I think another potential title is the “Environmental Reporting (Maintaining the Clean Green Myth) Bill” because of the provisions in clause 18 for regulation-making powers. The only reason these regulation-making powers exist in the bill is to enable Ministers to set the topics for environmental reporting. When you have a Government that is promoting agricultural intensification and more irrigation that means that it will be interested in ensuring that our brand the “100% Pure” brand is maintained overseas. The reality of what a lot of the expansion in agriculture and the expansion in irrigation is doing to our waterways in terms of declining water quality real stress on native species that depend on our braided rivers loss of riparian wetlands and loss of tussock grasslands and shrub lands in the Mackenzie as those areas are converted to pasture—the Government will not want that reality to be made known. So that is why the substantial flaw in this bill in clause 18 with the loss of independence I think would justify the title of the “Environmental Reporting (Maintaining the Clean Green Myth) Bill”.Another of the reasons for that title is in clause 18(2). The thresholds that the Ministers have to consider before establishing topics are very high and they will potentially constrain the topics that can be reported on. Just looking at clause 18(2) it says that “the Ministers must be satisfied that any—(a) pressure topic or impact topic affects significant areas resources or numbers of people:”. So it has got to be established that the topic actually has that impact on significant areas. That means that if there is an issue that might affect only a rare species that is found in only a small part of New Zealand then that aspect of biodiversity cannot be reported on.These thresholds also mean that issues that might potentially affect a large area cannot be reported on. That is a major flaw in the bill because we need comprehensive and robust state of the environment reporting so that we understand the health of the whole of our environment so that we can identify the causes of environmental problems and so that we can look at whether the policies that are being put in place are actually working. This quite strong constraint around the topics and the fact that it is a political decision rather than an independent decision by senior public servants will I think constrain the environmental reporting and will mean that it is dominated by work to actually ensure that New Zealanders have an impression that we are a clean green country when the reality is very different particularly in terms of the declining water quality with agricultural intensification. We have already seen that with the limited reporting that is done at the moment—things like the monitoring of recreational swimming sites and the fact that two-thirds of monitored sites are unfit for safe swimming.So there is a major opportunity lost in the bill and my concern is that it is a bill that just encourages complacency in terms of environmental reporting. It does not actually get to the nub of where the harm is occurring and that is particularly in terms of water quality and our biodiversity crisis. We have a large number of threatened species—over 2000—and I am not confident with the Ministers setting the topics that we will get a comprehensive suite of indicators. That is partly because of the stop-start nature of the work by the Ministry for the Environment in developing environmental performance indicators and we do not have good performance indicators for the state of biodiversity in our country.This bill would have been a good opportunity to get cross-party support. The Government has rejected that and there are major flaws in the bill. Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on clauses 1 and 2 in this debate on this very important piece of legislation the Environmental Reporting Bill. This is a very aptly and appropriately named piece of legislation. In the style of the National Government it is named simply clearly and efficiently and it does what it says on the box. If we were less gracious as some of the members of the Opposition are we could give it a less suitable title. We might call it the “Correcting 9 Long Years of Labour Woeful Mismanagement Bill”. We might call it “A Bill to Fix Up 9 Years of an Impotent Green Party Propping Up a Labour Party that Did Nothing for the Environment in this Country” but luckily we are not a petty and small-minded Government. We are a Government that is focused on the issues that are important to New Zealand unlike the members opposite. The commencement clause clause 2 tells us that this bill comes into effect in 9 months’ time—not 9 long years. For 9 long years New Zealand sat in that very small minority of countries that did not have an effective environmental reporting bill in place but we are bringing this in in only 9 months and I think that is a very very positive thing.Some of the contributions from the members opposite show how little they actually care about the environment. The Hon Ruth Dyson just wants to have a go at me for not being a scientist—and I freely concede I am not a scientist. I have been educated at the very fine institution of the University of Otago in the noble art of archaeology. So although I may not know about nitrous oxide levels or other scientific matters I am well versed in the excavation of old fossils and that is why I understand the members opposite.I will wrap up by saying that this is an appropriately named piece of legislation. It will make a big difference to our environment in New Zealand. It will report on matters to do with the atmosphere the water the ground and environmental ecosystems in this country. It will bring us into line with the rest of the OECD and it is another very good piece of legislation from this excellent Government. I commend it to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is always a pleasure to go after Paul Foster-Bell. I am sure the technicians are very thankful to him for saving them some time in doing their annual check on the speaker system here in Parliament.There have been a number of alternative titles put up for this bill and I would like to again go for a simple alternative. We should change the name of this bill to the “Environmental Responsibility Reporting Bill.” I am a big fan of acronyms for bills and that would change this bill to the “ERR Bill”—or err as in mistake—because that is exactly what this piece of legislation is.This Government has erred in this piece of legislation. It has taken away a large degree of independence in the reporting that needs to go on here in New Zealand. We need to make sure that the current state of affairs with the monitoring of our environment is independent and that we are looking at the things that need to get looked at. This Government has erred in that because in this piece of legislation it is giving some of that responsibility to the Minister and that leaves that process open to political interference whereby things that should be looked at might not get looked at. In my opinion and in the opinion of this party and the Opposition the Government has erred with the “ERR Bill” as I would like to see it called. There needs to be independence when we are dealing with the reporting and the monitoring of the environment.Another instance where this piece of legislation has erred is in the fact that the Government did not take up the opportunity to support Supplementary Order Paper 92 which was in the name of my colleague Su’a William Sio. That would have inserted a clause to include consideration for New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities and how they impact of the Pacific region’s climate ecosystems and its people. That is a huge error.I do not see anything hugely controversial about that because we do not live in isolation at the bottom of the Pacific. What we do here in New Zealand and what the Australians do in Australia affects all those small nations in the Pacific. The likes of Tokelau—which my parents came from—with only 1500 people living on three atolls very much relies on the activities of other nations for its future. The highest point above sea level there is something like 50 to 75 centimetres. So I think we do have a responsibility to those Pacific nations to make sure that we include them in the monitoring of how what we do that affects them. I think especially with regard to some of those that we do have an official relationship with that we should be doing more to make sure that we are monitoring what is happening to us as well as what is happening to them. That is an error or an “ERR” on behalf of this piece of legislation.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.