Tirikatene Rino: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTirikatene Rino: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3372. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to join in opposition to this bill for the reasons that have been outlined by Mr Shaw. Although the Labour Party supports the intent of this bill—and we did support it at the first reading—unfortunately the main thrust of the bill is its lack of independence. It is all great to have experienced officials—the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment—involved in producing these reports. However the actual topics that those reports will cover are completely in the domain of the Government.Hon Member: It’s not true.RINO TIRIKATENE: It is true. Therefore there is no better example of our opposition to this bill than the speech from the member who just resumed her seat earlier Ms Hayes because she talked about the so-called independence; she talked about the wonderful work that has been going on in the various domains—water quality air and various other domains that are covered by this bill. However—and I am referring back to her speech before she was interrupted the week before last—she was basically giving us the Government’s spin lines through its blue-tinted lenses as to what it is doing around the environment. That is the very reason why we are opposing this bill because that is the very reason why it lacks independence.We are the only country in the OECD that does not have a legislative basis for independent environmental reporting. All Kiwis want to know and be sure that we have trusted independent reports on the state of our environment. That is critical. This bill fails. It completely fails because the actual content the topics that will be covered by these periodic reports—be they on the domains or the other sequential-type reports that will be coming—will be completely set in place by regulation through the Ministers. So it lacks independence.But I also want to touch on the irony of the Government because just prior to the last time we were debating this bill we were debating a bill on the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The members opposite were lauding the virtues of the independence of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I believe it was Mr Bishop who said in his speech that we are politicians and we are not best placed to make investment decisions. Well the same could be applied to this independent environmental reporting. We are politicians—that is right—and we are not best placed to make decisions or to actually provide independent reports on the state of our environment. It was demonstrated by Ms Hayes and Mr Bishop that this Government is lost. It really has not got a clue in terms of what is required for providing independent reporting on the state of our environment.It is a shame on this Government that it is pushing this bill through when there are deep flaws in it—deep flaws. We need to make sure—and this is very important; it is a very important topic—that we have independent reporting on our environment. Well let us make it independent. Let us take the topics out of the realm of the Ministers and let us make sure that the independent Government officials who are charged by statute—that is the irony again. If we look at clause 14 I believe it is the statute says that the Government officials—the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment—have to act independently of the Government. That in itself shows you how flawed the bill is because how can you have an independent report when the actual topics that will be considered in the report are actually cooked up by the Ministers themselves?Sure the Ministers may have to consult and follow a statutory process around how they finalise the decisions but at the end of the day the decisions the topics that will be covered under the reports are completely the domain of the Ministers. Therefore the reports lose all credibility—all credibility—and that is why we oppose this bill. Cheers.