Dyson Ruth: Environmental Reporting Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Environmental Reporting Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 24 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:7073. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Before the debate adjourned for our lunch break I was putting on the record how disappointing it is that the Minister for the Environment was not able to change clause 18 of this legislation which would have enabled all other parties in this Parliament to support it. [Interruption] Mr Brownlee is very upset because he cannot hear me and I am just wondering whether my microphone is not working.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the microphone is working but the sound system is on an emergency system. There is a lot of noise as members are leaving. Would they please leave as quietly as they can if they do not wish to remain listening to the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON: I would invite the honourable member to come and sit over here so he would be able to hear me very clearly because I know that would be the highlight of the end of his week I am sure.As I was saying it is very disappointing that the Minister who is now responsible for this bill the Hon Dr Nick Smith was not able to get his Cabinet colleagues to agree to a change in respect of the one and only fundamental disagreement that other parties have had with this bill and that was that we do not agree that ministerial determination of the scope of the reports to be written in this Environmental Reporting Bill is appropriate. We should be able to say without any shadow of doubt that these reports are independent the topics that have been chosen have been chosen independently and we should have confidence in the integrity of the information that we are putting out in these reports. I do not imagine that either the Hon Amy Adams in whose name this bill was when it was first introduced or the Hon Dr Nick Smith have any intention of misleading the country or international commentators on environmental issues but we cannot say for sure that that independence is a given because they are determining the scope of the reports. That was the concern that numerous submitters had.Senior members of our community who have a lot of experience and expertise in this area said: “This is not the best-quality environmental reporting standard because we don’t have political independence.” That is what we asked to have changed and I am very disappointed that the Minister was not able to get his Cabinet colleagues to agree to that change. If he had been able to secure that agreement then every party in this Parliament would have been able to say “We support this legislation.” and what a great message to the rest of the country that would have been. This is a lost opportunity in terms of filling a gap in our legislative regime. This is a gap that needed to be filled but it has been filled inadequately.The other lost opportunity that is also presented in this bill is the fact that in earlier stages my colleague Su’a William Sio suggested that we have environmental reporting not only about decisions made in and affecting New Zealand but also about decisions that are made in New Zealand that affect our brothers and sisters in the Pacific. That would have been a huge gesture of support for us in recognising particularly the impact of climate change on our fellow Pacific Islanders. Again the Government said no to that. There was no explanation as to why. I think it is a lost opportunity.It would have been a delight to have supported this legislation but under the circumstances—perhaps it will not be a permanent situation; there may be an opportunity in the future for it to be amended so that we can support it—it is with regret that we will be opposing this bill.