Foss Craig: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionFoss Craig: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4550. Text is subject to correction.]Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Statistics):I just take the opportunity to talk particularly to Supplementary Order Paper 87 proposed by Eugenie Sage which has been a topic of a lot of the conversation. Clause 18 was as the member said earlier one of the contentious points during the select committee process at the second reading and now of course while we are on Part 2. There are concerns that some people have about clause 18. I do acknowledge though through the Chair that the work that the Local Government and Environment Committee did to get us to this point was obviously very very good work and well done to those members. It is unfortunate that some parties are not agreeing with and will not be voting for this part and this bill at the end of the day but let us see how we go.The concern seems to be about the independence of topic-setting by the Minister of Statistics and the Minister for the Environment and it is being made out as if this is something new. Well in fact the Statistics Act 1975 already has this same model embedded. In fact without reading the particular section of the Act the key point is that the ministerial power has never been exercised since the Act was passed in 1975 but it is essentially this same model. If in fact the Government Statistician believes the Minister has interfered in some way in the goings on or in the makings of statistics at an operational level under that particular Act they can report to the House or make public their concerns about that. As I noted that section has never been used at least not since 1975. Again that is the same model that we have here in this bill.I do note that the Supplementary Order Paper has a suggestion that the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician do the topic-setting. I also acknowledge Megan Woods’ point that there was another suggestion in I think an earlier discussion that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment do the topic-setting. But she also acknowledged why that should not happen and she pointed to some of the checks and balances in clause 17. That is absolutely fair enough but it brings me to the checks and balances because as the we saw in the second reading the House did accept the changes made by the select committee inserting more consultation around the topic-setting by the Ministers with local government and iwi.If there was deemed to be some mischief let us say clauses 6(1A) and 9(2) I think—I might have that round the wrong way—also point to the Supplementary Order Paper by Eugene Sage—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Eugenie Sage.Hon CRAIG FOSS: Excuse me—Eugenie Sage. Apologies for getting the name wrong. Clause 9(2) says: “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.” So political accountability to this House to Parliament is actually paramount in this bill because the other side of the debate and the proposals from the member—in fact it is a well-worn path if you like that we have topic-setting in the regulatory process.But I note that if the topics were to be set by the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician well yes some may see that as being a better option. But having topic-setting in the regulations also allows for important levels of accountability to members of this Parliament who are representatives of and to the public. So if the Ministers are jointly recommending regulations—i.e. the topics—they are accountable for those choices made when setting topics and for ensuring that the scope of reporting is relevant to New Zealanders—i.e. they are accountable to this Parliament to this House. If as in the other proposal under the Supplementary Order Paper the Secretary for the Environment and/or the Government Statistician were to set the topics accountability for their decision making would be met through a judicial review as it is with any statutory power.So again there are pros and cons to both proposals. I fully acknowledge that but I also fully acknowledge that these were canvassed very well at the select committee. I acknowledge that those points were reported on in the various reports by the political parties in the commentary on the bill. But actually there is a well-worn path. The model of independence is already in place under the Statistics Act in the form of a regulatory process providing certainty and confidence and accountability to this Parliament and to this House and decisions made by those two Ministers in setting the topics are open for accountability to the House.The select committee did a good job in arriving at the decision that it did. It enhanced the original bill to give it further checks and balances given the concerns raised at the select committee and now these have been accepted by the House in the bill’s second reading. For those reasons we are not supportive of relitigating the discussion and argument as proposed in respect of the member’s Supplementary Order Paper.