O'Rourke Denis: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3352. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First opposes this bill and we opposed it at the first reading too because as Andrew Williams then said the bill appeared to sideline the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and that is absolutely true. The bill does allow the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to report but that should actually in our view be mandatory too.But there are other reasons and I want to acknowledge the opinion by Sir Geoffrey Palmer obtained by Fish and Game New Zealand. New Zealand First agrees with him and supports the position of Fish and Game on the bill. They of course have an obvious and serious dependence on the need for good-quality environmental reporting and above all they need to be assured that there is independent environmental reporting in this country.Like them New Zealand First wants to see improved environmental reporting in this country but this bill is not what is needed. The purpose of the bill following a select committee amendment is simply to require regular reports on the New Zealand environment. The reason why the purpose no longer refers to reports on the environment that can be trusted by the public as independent fair and accurate is that the public will not now actually be able to have that trust as a result of this bill because the bill actually gives the Ministers full control of the topics to be reported or in fact not to be reported. So how could such a system possibly be regarded as independent? Of course it is not and independence is absolutely essential.This is not saved by clause 14 which requires the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician to act independently because the Ministers actually as I have said get all the power far too much executive power in this case. The domains to be reported on include those in respect of air atmosphere and climate; freshwater; and land and marine domains. But under clause 12 the topics to be reported on are to be chosen by way of regulations made under clause 18—agreed on by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Statistics and not Parliament.Even the term “topics” is not well defined in the bill and it is vague as to what will actually be covered. In addition there is the strange clause 15 under which the Secretary and the Government Statistician are required to assure in their reports “a fair and accurate representation of the state of New Zealand’s environment … or the state of the domain being reported on” but only “so far as it is reasonably practicable”. The words “so far as it is reasonably practicable” completely compromise the assurance of fair and accurate reporting which is the core of this legislation.In agreeing on the topics the Ministers must have regard to pressures on the environment that could cause adverse environmental impacts and they must be satisfied that the pressure topics chosen have an impact on significant areas resources or numbers of people measurability and the relationships between topics and impacts. But in the end these requirements actually place very little limitation on ministerial discretion. So the Ministers could simply decide to report on the sum topics but could also simply decide without telling anybody not to report on other topics at all and that is a gross defect in my view in this bill. Not only will the bill fail the transparency test in this way but it will also prevent the Official Information Act from operating as intended by limiting access to what is called untested information. The officials will be able to withhold the information that they prefer to avoid for that reason.Clause 16 of the bill now exempts from this requests made under the Ombudsmen Act and the Public Audit Act but members of the public cannot get the so-called untested information they should be entitled to. There is scope for data and other information not reported on to be withheld permanently for no satisfactory reason. All of this raises one fundamental question: why would the central aim of the bill which is to enable decisions on what should be reported be achieved by way of delegated legislation—regulations decided by two Ministers under clause 18—when this would be better achieved by the legislation itself by way of schedules annexed to it? These could still be amended from time to time by way of the full parliamentary process.The Government of course has argued that matters like changing environmental measurement techniques require flexibility and that would be too difficult if left in the legislation but I think that that is a very weak argument. Parliament should retain control over matters of this scale of importance. Schedules to other legislation are often amended in this way after all.The new requirements for consultation are a step in the right direction but are actually not nearly enough. The truth is that the Government wants to increase the power of the executive sideline Parliament and increase secrecy. In this way the Ministers can protect their Government from adverse reports which might cause it political embarrassment or damage. Some regulation will of course be necessary but this should cover only matters of detail and other administrative issues not the substance of the reports themselves. So this is another way in which this arrogant Government is building its own power for its own purposes. The question of what should be reported to Parliament and the public should be decided by and subjected to the scrutiny of Parliament not the executive members of the Government.This bill is an example of what Sir Douglas Kidd called “the ongoing tendency of all Governments to stray from the paths of constitutional righteousness seduced by the sirens of power efficiency and convenience.” But one of the worst features of the bill is the treatment of the public which I have already alluded to in respect of unpublished information on the spurious basis that it is untested. Nowhere else is that excuse used. Information after all is just information. People should be able to judge or test its worth for themselves. This new regime of secrecy of information relevant to environmental reporting is actually contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which guarantees freedom of expression. That includes the freedom to obtain official information tested or not and to discuss and offer opinions on it if that is what they want to do.Although the Government-dominated select committee responsible for this bill has made some useful changes overall the bill if enacted will give the Government more executive power to create a regime of secrecy and potentially incomplete environmental reporting—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I have rung the 2-minute bell but I am going to give the member a warning with regard to the reading of speeches. There have been some pretty clear rulings from the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker that we are moving away from the reading of speeches and I am ruling that the member is at the moment doing that.DENIS O’ROURKE: Mr Assistant Speaker that is strange because in fact there are only notes here not a written speech. So if it sounds written then that is not actually the case.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well that therefore is a compliment to the member.DENIS O’ROURKE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker—thank you. In any event I will repeat my last paragraph because that is what it is. The select committee dominated by the Government has ensured that this bill will enhance the power of the executive and will mean that environmental reporting in this country is likely to be incomplete and will certainly not under the provisions of this bill be independent. As you can see Mr Assistant Speaker that statement certainly was not read.