Woods Megan: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4462. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I am happy to take a call in the Committee stage of the Environmental Reporting Bill. Specifically I want to talk to new clause 3 the purpose clause of this bill because I think that within new clause 3 of this bill—the purpose clause and what we would expect of this bill and what we will find through further contributions on this piece of legislation—we will see why it is that Labour is unable to support this legislation. It is not with any great happiness that we come into this Chamber unable to support this legislation. If we look at the broad purpose at the fact that New Zealand is one of the only countries in the OECD not to have a robust environmental reporting system—if we look at the broad purpose that we would have an independent check and balance on the state of our environment these are all worthy aims and something that we could support. But unfortunately what we do not see in the detail of the legislation that we have before us is a piece of legislation that fulfils those lofty and worthy goals that we would be happy to support.The purpose clause of this bill was the subject of a reasonable amount of activity for the submitters on this bill. Eleven submissions were received on this part of the bill in the submissions that were heard at the Local Government and Environment Committee’s deliberations. Most of the submitters did recommend some tidying up of the drafting that was in here. In particular the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment gave a very good submission that proposed a much cleaner clause 3 of this legislation than the one that was in the early draft that went to the select committee. The suggestion of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was that there be just a very simple purpose statement put in here around what it is that the bill purports to do: “The purpose of this Act is to require regular reports on the state of New Zealand’s environment.” This was supported by a number of agencies. Not only did the Parliamentary Commissioner support this but so did the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Business New Zealand the Environmental Defence Society the Resource Management Law Association and Fish and Game New Zealand. Indeed Sir Geoffrey Palmer in Fish and Game’s submission wrote a very good opinion on why it was that that was to be the case.But what needed to be done to the previous clause 3 is much of what is problematic throughout the rest of this legislation. It was muddled it did not really do what it needed to do and it was not in a logical way to achieve it. That is a problem that we will be referring to throughout our contributions at this Committee stage—what the problems with this legislation are. We did make some changes at the select committee. We did remove a very cumbersome purpose statement in clause 3 and replaced it with a much shorter more elegant purpose clause which now reads: “The purpose of this Act is to require regular reports on New Zealand’s environment.” It was good that we managed to tidy this up but it was not actually what was asked for by the submitters who had given very thoughtful submissions on the very purpose of this legislation.There is a critical piece missing from that purpose statement and it is for that reason that we will be supporting the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Paper 87 which seeks to insert “the state of”. It is not just about the environment. It is really important that this is about the state of our environment that we are reporting on when we report on it. It is really important that we capture that in the purpose statement—that we have a very short a very elegant and a very well-crafted purpose statement potentially that we can put there that gets to the nub of what this legislation purports to do.Some other changes were made at the select committee to Part 1 of the legislation. These were changes that we were happy to support and they were unanimous changes for the committee. One of these was the recommendation to insert a Treaty of Waitangi clause at new clause 4A. The insertion of this clause was to make this legislation consistent with other legislation and recognise the principles of the Treaty. The principles of the Treaty are really important when we are considering environmental reporting and reporting on the state of the New Zealand environment. We were more than happy to support those changes and the work that had been done.It is a real opportunity that we are missing here. I think that these changes that we want to see to Part 1 and the inconsistencies that we are going to see throughout the legislation—because what we wanted when we first started talking about environmental reporting was independent environmental reporting. That is not what we are getting through this legislation. What we are getting is a piece of legislation where the Minister ultimately has control. That is a problem for us no matter who sits on the Government benches. It is a problem when there is not independence attached to this kind of reporting. It is not a slur on any particular Minister. What it is saying is that we genuinely want independent reporting on the state of our environment in New Zealand. We have the opportunity to do this with this legislation. There are some changes that could be made through Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table and that if agreed to would mean that Labour could support this legislation. Fundamentally it is a good idea. But the execution that we are seeing in the bill that we have before us in the Chamber tonight does not fulfil the purpose that we are talking about in new clause 3 of this legislation.This is a sign that this is a Government that really has lost its way. It is failing to fulfil those objectives that it set out to do. It simply does not do it. It is not a piece of legislation that is fit for purpose if our aim is to have independent environmental reporting in this country. It is not going to do that. It shows how far out of touch the Government has got on what it needs to be doing. It shows that it is absolutely failing in this task. It shows that this is a Government that has reached the peak of arrogance when it will not even listen to sensible suggestions from some very well-crafted and thoughtful submissions from some very very good thinkers who came before the select committee and asked that we did have genuine independence in our environmental reporting legislation. But those pleas and they were pleas from many of the submitters fell on stony silence from the Opposition members. They were not willing to think about the ways in which we could improve this legislation. It is an opportunity lost. We could have done it—Sue Moroney: Government members.Dr MEGAN WOODS: Sorry you are quite right. Thank you Ms Moroney. It was the Government members; the Opposition members were more than willing to listen to the voices of reason and to listen to very well made cases and very thoughtful submissions as we always are when they come before select committees. Unfortunately—you are quite right Ms Moroney—it was the Government members who were not willing to listen to those submissions.This is where we think about the very purpose of the bill. As we go through the stages and go through this bill clause by clause it is absolutely imperative that we keep that purpose firmly in our minds: what it is that this legislation should be doing and what it is when we examine other clauses of this legislation such as clause 18 that we will see this legislation does not do and that it simply fails at that task. I look forward to further contributions on this piece of legislation but what we have to do is consider very carefully this purpose statement of the legislation so that we can consider the other clauses as we go through and consider it. Thank you.