Sio William: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSio William: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3345. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):I had difficulty accepting that Mr Simpson was genuine in the argument that he put forward. I do not really think he believes what he was saying. He will have heard from the submitters to the Local Government and Environment Committee how seriously flawed this bill is. At the beginning it was the intention of the Labour Party like all the other Opposition parties I suspect—we were looking with much expectation at the introduction of this bill. We supported its referral to the select committee because we believed that there was going to be some genuine work done in terms of this Government reporting on and highlighting our environmental standards. But sadly despite the evidence presented by significant individuals and organisations to Government members they have gone ahead and continued with the present bill in a flawed state. I wonder whether the Government members who will support this bill at its second reading can in 10 years’ time or 20 years’ time come back to the House and tell us what the state of our riverways will be what the state of our environment will be. If we adopt this bill it will do very little if anything. In fact what this bill does is it enables a Minister of the Government to play politics with the way the environmental situation is to be reported.I think sometimes because we live in a much bigger country than most of the Pacific Islands we have difficulty understanding how real the environmental issues are. But I think if members were to travel outside our country and visit some of the Pacific Islands they would see that there are real environmental issues climate change issues that our region is facing. The reason why along with my colleagues I was looking with high expectations at this bill is that if this bill is to be adopted and we get a standard measure of reporting on how our environment exists currently then we will be able to set a standard that we could measure as the years go by. Unfortunately the bill is contrary to what we heard in that select committee in terms of best practice. It is best practice that rather than having a Minister control what topics what issues are to be reported on it should be independently reported on. Scientists should also be involved in the choosing of topics and how they are to be reported to this House. Unfortunately that is not the case.I have to say that despite what the previous speaker said about our clean green image is that really what we are trying to protect here? It does not sound like it. It does not sound like we are talking about the protection of the environment. It sounds more like we are trying to cover up the harm that we will cause to the environment for the sake of economic development. I do not believe for one minute that what we are adopting in this bill is going to enhance protect and ensure the safety of our environment not only for the present population but for future populations. We have often said—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I ask the member to sit. I am going to ask the Clerk at the Table to ring the bell as there is not a Minister present.Hon Simon Bridges: Yes there is.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am sorry. I apologise. [Interruption] It is all right. I apologise. I did not anticipate the Minister crossing over there. There is a New Zealand First sort of relationship—a Tauranga relationship—but we will go back to Su’a William Sio.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: In terms of the branding what is the brand that we want for New Zealand? Do we want the brand of 100 percent pure clean and green? Is that the brand that we want? If it is the reporting regime that this bill provides for does not guarantee that we are going to strengthen enhance and protect that branding. In fact sadly I was surfing on the internet to see what the international arena would throw up in terms of our branding. HBO had a clip on John Oliver. It was a teaser about the Prime Minister ponytails and wine. I am not going to get into that—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —but the branding of 100 percent pure clean and green is the branding that we should be collectively looking to protect and enhance. The only way that that can be achieved is by ensuring that the reporting on our environment is independent is scientifically robust and is assessed. The best practice that is used not only locally but at the international level should be the topic. It should not be that a Minister in any Government whether it be them or us in 2017—Ministers of any political persuasion should not have the unfettered power to be able to choose what topics are reported on and how they are reported on. What can then arise is that Ministers may choose not to report on a topic because there is public opposition to it or Ministers may choose not to report on the way our waterways are because they do not want to highlight the current situation.I could not help but hear earlier the member talking about our waterways being protected and safe. I have to say there is a lake out in Ōtara. In the 1970s we used to go fishing in there and we used to swim in there. Today you can no longer do that. Over the years as a result of development and the runoffs it is unsafe. There are signs there: “Do not swim.” and “Do not eat anything out of this lake.” If in the 1970s it was safe and in 2015 it is unsafe should it not be the desire of this House and certainly any Government that has any sense to ensure that we return that lake to how it was when people were able to eat from it swim in it and use it on a day-to-day basis? If that is the case then this bill cannot proceed and should not proceed. Any right-thinking good sensible Government that has no arrogance whatsoever would know that this is what it has to do. It is not about politics; it should be about doing the right thing for present and future generations.I note that in the department disclosure statement it says that it spoke to Te Puni Kōkiri. There is a requirement when it comes to the environmental issues that Māori ought to be consulted. If memory serves me right—and my Māori colleagues may want to correct me—Māori similar to many indigenous cultures are well versed in terms of tradition in how they protect the environment. It is embedded in much of the thinking of the elders that when we are using the land the rivers the air etc. not only do we need to use it for the present generation but also leave something for future generations. That is what should be our goal. That is what we should be aiming for.Unfortunately the way this bill is drafted it is more about economics. I want to read something that highlights this point. It is more about economics and if that is the case it is not going to last very very long. Here again from the departmental disclosure statement it reads: “Improved access to consistent high quality information on New Zealand’s environmental performance is expected to assist businesses in marketing their products and services overseas.” That seems to be the basis for why this Government is prepared to allow a flawed bill to proceed. It is not about protecting our environment for present and future generations but about promoting goods and services to international markets. I have to say that that is not a principle that will allow future generations to enjoy the kind of environment that we have been fortunate to have.