Environmental Reporting Bill

Members, we are now in Committee on the Environmental Reporting Bill. When we were last discussing this bill Eugenie Sage had the call on Part 2, and she has 30 seconds left.

I will take that. I was just discussing the changes to clauses 7 and 10 and the importance of providing some flexibility—

💬 David Seymour: 10 seconds.

—thank you, Mr Seymour—so that there is an ability to address any impact that arises from the state of the environment report or changes to the state of the environment, in addition to the matters listed in the bill. My Supplementary Order Paper 87 provides that flexibility by making sure that the list in the bill is not an exclusive list.

It is my pleasure to take another call on Part 2 of this bill, and I want to speak specifically on clause 16. I want to acknowledge some of the changes that were made to this clause at the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is the clause that deals with the disclosure of information, and that was subject to a great deal of submissions. The legislation that we have before us reflects some of those submissions, so they are very much in the bill that is in front of us. I want to talk about some of the changes that were made, and about Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage that suggests a further amendment to this clause, which Labour will be supporting.

Clause 16 is the clause in this piece of legislation that gives the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician the power to withhold information or analysis that will be or has been used in an environmental report to be published. The stated intention of this clause is, on the surface, very good. The stated intention of the clause is to try to put into place some of the barriers to political interference that we have been advocating for in other parts of this legislation, and that those are to be kept and withheld so that there cannot be that level of ministerial interference.

We had a very good submission from Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, on clause 16. She agreed that the stated intention of the clause was, indeed, admirable and something that we should support, but that clause 16 could actually be used to go far beyond protecting against Government interference.

First, the clause as it was drafted is ambiguous and that is why the legislation that we see before us today has been changed, and the select committee did recommend changes in the bill from the select committee back here to the House. We as a committee recommended that clause 16 be amended to clarify that the Government Statistician could withhold access only to untested data prepared for the purposes of this Act. So it did not mean that when information was going to be brought in from other sources—held by regional councils or other bodies, but was going to be used under this Act—there could be barriers to it being used in other places.

I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee in making this change because, although we do not support this bill in its current form unless the Government has had a change of heart and is going to support the amendments to clause 18, I do think there has been an improvement to this piece of legislation by tidying up clause 16. It is making sure that we are not putting ring-fences around information needlessly and end up inadvertently—I believe is the case—ring-fencing off information that could be profitably used for other purposes. Indeed, it is incredibly important for us to be able to use it, because we are trying to create some kind of barrier to ministerial interference.

As we have suggested in previous contributions, we think that if that is the intention of the Government, then there are indeed better ways in order for this legislation to be free from ministerial interference, and we have talked about those in relation to another clause in Part 2 of this legislation, in clause 18. We are supporting the amendments that are proposed there.

There were some changes made to clause 16 at the select committee, as I have talked about, but we actually do support Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper on this, where she wants to insert the word “exclusively”. This was something that we discussed at select committee. In fact, it was something that I suggested, because I think that using the word “exclusively” actually removes any kind of ambiguity around the fact that we need to section this off for information that is prepared only for the purposes of this Act and that we do not inadvertently catch important data that the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment have decided can be used for the purposes of reporting on the state of the New Zealand environment and brought in. We do not want to catch that.

I do not believe that this is the purpose of this Act and I do not think that it was ever the purpose of the legislation to do that. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that and to see whether he will consider a very sensible change to clause 16 that will actually ensure that we do not inadvertently tie up information that does not need to be. I think that is something we heard very strongly in submissions, and it is a sensible suggestion.

I want to also speak briefly in support of my colleague Su’a William Sio’s Supplementary Order Paper, which he has put before the Committee for this reading. It asks that we not only consider New Zealand when we are considering the state of the New Zealand environment but that we actually consider the flow-on effect to our region and that we think about environmental actions in the context of our place in the world, our place as a leader in the Pacific, and the impacts that our environmental actions and our actions around climate change, in particular, are going to make on our Pacific neighbours.

I think this is a fantastic Supplementary Order Paper and it is certainly one that Labour will be supporting. It is something that I think would strengthen this piece of legislation immensely. It would not only be about New Zealand if we were to pass clause 18 and have it free from ministerial interference—about New Zealand finally joining the rest of the OECD and having independent, environmental reporting on our environment, free from political interference—but it would also place New Zealand in its proper global context and that is in the Pacific.

So this is an amendment that I would like this Committee to consider, and I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that in the call that I am sure he is about to make when he addresses clause 16 and the very sensible suggestions in the changes to that clause. This Supplementary Order Paper is about us taking our proper role in the Pacific and having our reports reflecting the leadership role that we should be taking environmentally and in terms of climate change in the Pacific. Thank you.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Chairman.

The question therefore is that—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Chairman, I know my voice is really, really quiet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh, sorry. The Hon Ruth Dyson.

I am sorry. I was sitting behind you, and you obviously did not hear me. I am disappointed, actually, rather than pleased to be able to contribute in this debate on Part 2 of the Environmental Reporting Bill. The reason I am disappointed is that this was the opportunity for New Zealand to not just catch up but be ahead of the game. We could have again been a world leader in terms of environmental reporting. We have lagged a long way behind in this space, and the original Minister for the Environment who drafted this bill, the Hon Amy Adams, took a lot of time to praise herself in introducing this legislation. The Hon Nick Smith is now responsible for it, and it is my view that they deserve some credit for introducing the Environmental Reporting Bill—there was a gap in what we did as a nation—but to totally undermine the integrity of such a good move is foolish.

Government members have had an opportunity throughout the hearings at the Local Government and Environment Committee. They know what the submissions said in regard to who sets the topics for environmental reporting, and it is my view that they have displayed an arrogance and been completely out of touch with what people who are concerned about the environment, in New Zealand and internationally, would like to see in this legislation. I urge the Minister to consider the opportunity that he now has before him to accept amendments to this legislation so that the whole of Parliament can back him as a world leader and say: “We’ve listened and we’ve got it right.” Up until now he has not been able to do that, and I think that is a real disappointment. It is an opportunity that I think we have lost.

There is no integrity in a system that has the Minister for the Environment responsible for setting the topics that are then reported publicly. Holding the Government to account and being able to genuinely measure our progress on issues that are about as serious as you can you get should be something that is without challenge. The Minister should be able to stand up and say: “This is what we have achieved.” This is what the Minister would be able to say, but now, every time the Minister gets up to crow about any progress in environmental reporting, the obvious criticism, which he could avoid but is choosing not to, will be: “Well, of course you’ve made progress in that regard, in that domain; that is why you chose that topic to have reported against.” Why would any sensible Minister leave himself open to that criticism when the rest of Parliament is saying: “Change it and you will have total support of the Parliament for this legislation.”? So I do not really understand why a Minister would just act in such an arrogant way and demonstrate how out of touch he is with what people wanted. It is not a scandal; it is just a gross disappointment.

I just want to move on to noting Supplementary Order Paper 92, which my colleague Su’a William Sio has put forward. Again, I think this gives the Parliament of New Zealand the opportunity to really put its mark on its support for and its concern about what is happening in the broader Pacific. The amendments that Su’a William Sio is wanting to move relate to “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts” not just on New Zealand’s state of the environment, which is the primary purpose of this bill, but on “the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems, and its people.” I think they are very good amendments. They amend clauses 7 and 10. Again, I would say to the Minister, let us understand that environmental concerns should be above party politics. We should have more genuine debate and discussion on issues that threaten the livelihood and well-being of people around the world. If there is any space in this Parliament for working together, I would have thought it was in this space.

I also want to commend and support Green Party member Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper 87. Again, it amends clause 7. It looks like quite a simple amendment, but I think it adds a depth to the original intent. It certainly does not change it, but it gives more relevance and depth to those provisions in terms of the domain reporting. The amendments that Eugenie Sage is proposing to clause 10 add the words “and analyse” after “describe”. Again, it does not change the intention, but I think it shows an understanding and a reflection of what was heard during the select committee process. This amendment reflects the positive contribution that submitters made to that process, and some members’ understanding of it. I think the Minister probably would be inclined to support that sort of amendment. It does not detract, it does not change the focus, and it certainly does not get him into any challenge with regard to domain-setting, but it adds a depth to it that I think is very useful.

As I said at the outset, this bill really could have been the opportunity for New Zealand to gain its rightful place as a world leader on the international scene in terms of environmental issues. We certainly have been there in the past. In recent times we have slid behind, and I think that is to our shame. It is to the regret of most citizens of New Zealand. It is, though, an opportunity that has been missed, first of all by the Hon Amy Adams, and now by the Hon Nick Smith. I urge them and their Cabinet colleagues to reflect on the simple amendments that have been proposed to the primary disagreement in this legislation, which is around the integrity of the topics that are reported against. Who sets the topics, and how can the public of New Zealand have faith that these are genuine reports about the state of our environment? If the Minister were able to agree to those proposals, it would be a very good day for democracy and for the New Zealand Parliament. It would be a very good day for environmental reporting. Actually, the Minister would then be able to take all the credit and crow about it.

As I said in my previous call, it seems very puzzling to me that the Minister, who on the scale of things, I have to say, is committed to progressing environmental issues—why would the Minister leave himself so vulnerable to such obvious criticism when, by agreeing to amendments to this legislation at this Committee stage, he could remove all that opposition? He would become a bit of a star in the environmental reporting space in New Zealand. We might not praise him too loudly, but he would deserve praise if he put back into the system some integrity in the reporting, and at the moment that is missing. So there are amendments that provide that opportunity. There are amendments that I have referred to already that add depth rather than change the meaning of some of the specific clauses, particularly clauses 7 and 10, and there is a new Supplementary Order Paper from Su’a William Sio that has been tabled, which I think really puts another level of potential leadership in the New Zealand Parliament’s space. That is to look at not just the obligations that we should have as New Zealanders in the environmental reporting on how our environment is, but also the impacts on our Pacific neighbours.

So I would really like to be saying that Labour supports this bill. It was a space that needed to be filled—I support environmental reporting. We are not able to support the bill because the Ministers have taken out the independence and integrity that is required for us to have confidence that this will not be manipulated for political gains. I am not accusing the Minister in the chair of doing that. It could be by any Minister who has this portfolio. A simple amendment could remove that criticism. It could give this reporting the integrity that it needs, and give the citizens of New Zealand confidence that we are prepared to challenge ourselves.

We are prepared, as a Parliament, to look at all the issues that we should be monitoring in environmental reporting, not just the ones that work for the benefit of the Minister. So it is an opportunity that should have been taken up. It is legislation that, in theory, should be supported, I think, by all parties in this Parliament. But it is an opportunity that has been lost because I think the Ministers have had an arrogant attitude. They have been out of touch with where the public of New Zealand is going. I urge them to reconsider and, hopefully, support the amendments to give the bill the integrity it needs.

This bill and this part are an important part of this Government’s agenda for improving New Zealand’s environmental architecture around the Environmental Protection Authority, which we created when we first came into Government and now with the Environmental Reporting Bill. I do note that we are the only OECD country to not have a formal system of environmental reporting, and I think there is broad consensus across the Parliament that that is an anomaly that we must address. The Government has agreed to quite extensive amendments through the select committee process to improve this bill, but in those speeches I have heard from Ruth Dyson and from Megan Woods I am reminded of a column I read a couple of days ago about the difficulty for the Opposition—that it has become the “no party”, that it is always seeking to find some excuse—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

They were very broad speeches.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think if the member was listening to the Speaker at 2 o’clock today he would have learnt a couple of things. One of them is that the member does not interject when the Chair is on his feet, as he just did, and also that the question of relevance is a question for the Chair. The member has had a minute, and he will remember that he has had predecessors in the chair who have been replied to. But, as many members in the Chamber are aware, this debate is one that, after a period of time on each part, gets tighter. I think it is now time for the member to start addressing this part and how it fits with what has been accepted at the second reading.

Members of the Opposition have gunned in on clause 18 of the bill and they are effectively saying that is why they are opposing the bill and will not be supporting it. What clause 18 does is it gives the Government the requirement to pass regulations around the topics that are covered by environmental reporting. It requires that there is a formal process of consultation with the public, with the Government Statistician, with the commissioner, with local authorities, and with iwi. I would also point out that there is a further check. When the environmental reporting is produced, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment also gets to report and to comment on the report.

In terms of where I think members of the Opposition are wildly exaggerating clause 18, I want to draw to their attention their claim that that brings into question the whole integrity of this Environmental Reporting Bill. I want to make the comparison with section 15 of the Statistics Act, which was passed by a Labour Government. It says: “at the direction of the Minister the Statistician is required to collect or cease collection of statistics of any kind [at] the direction of the Minister.” As a consequence, are members opposite saying that the statistics that are produced by that department have absolutely no integrity? Here is a provision in the law, passed by them, that has a far more powerful veto than clause 18, and I have not heard a whimper; I have not heard a question. I think that shows just how partisan their response is to clause 18.

I was also interested to compare clause 18 of this part with what is in the Australian state of the environment reporting. I have not heard any member from either side of the Chamber say that the Australian state of the environment reporting is a nonsense, yet it is done by prescription, by regulations set down by the Minister. There is no requirement even in the Australian legislation for any consultation prior to such regulations being gazetted, nor is there any requirement in Australia for the commissioner for the environment to provide an audit on those topics that are provided.

So the comparison with our own Statistics Act and the comparison with other OECD countries’ systems for state of the environment reporting shows that what the Government is doing in clause 18 as amended by the select committee is absolutely proper and responsive. It means that the Minister of the day will be accountable for those regulations, that there is an open, transparent process around how those topics are selected, and, in my view—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: No, there’s not.

Well, the member says there is not. Well, I would refer the member specifically to clause 18, where they have to be published, where there has to be consultation with a whole range of players in terms of the Government Statistician, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the public, iwi authorities, and local authorities. That is why the Government says that clause 18 is robust and sound, and should be supported.

I wish to move Supplementary Order Paper 92 in my name. Before I get on to that, I simply want to say to the Minister for the Environment, in response to the Minister’s comments, with the greatest respect, one of the big issues that was raised by submitters on Part 2 of this bill was the need for independence. Many of the submitters who presented themselves before the select committee did not feel that clause 18 as it stands—and the other relevant clauses—provides that independence for reporting back to the House.

But in terms of Supplementary Order Paper 92 in my name, clause 7 makes reference to the contents of synthesis reports that must be prepared and tabled. In subclause (2) of clause 7, it goes further to talk about the how the synthesis reports must describe “(a) changes to the state of New Zealand’s environment over time, including, if information in the report is able to be compared with that in a previous synthesis report, changes to the state of the environment since that previous report was published: (b) how the state of New Zealand’s environment measures against national or international standards.” My Supplementary Order Paper, then, asks that this Committee support the insertion of: “(c) how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems, and its people.”

Further, I ask the Committee to also consider, in clause 10, “Content of domain reports”. Again, in clause 10(2), it says: “In addition to the matters set out in subsection (1) [above], each domain report must describe—(a) changes to the state of the domain over time, including, if information in the report is able to be compared with that in a previous domain report, changes to the state of the domain since that previous report was published: (b) how the state of the domain measures against national or international standards.” My Supplementary Order Paper then asks that we insert a new paragraph (c) in clause 10(2) that says: “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems, and its people.”

A couple of weeks ago I was privileged to attend the Fiji parliamentarians’ workshop on key issues for the region. One of those key issues was the environmental impact of climate change. It was interesting, in the discussion, that the Pacific Islands are well aware of what is happening to the region, to the ocean. The earth is warming, the climate has changed, and that is having an impact on rising sea water levels. They acknowledge that the acidic nature of the ocean is growing, which, in turn, has an impact on fresh water and on agricultural production. They asked me whether New Zealand does care about what happens to them in the Pacific region. I said: “Well, sometimes we do and sometimes we do not.” It was a general statement because often in New Zealand we forget that the climate change and our activities, whether they be economic or environmental, have an impact on what happens to the Pacific Island region.

In fact, it is the belief of the Pacific Island countries that the harm that they are experiencing—with rising sea water levels, etc., and the frequency of the tropical cyclones, and the impact that those cyclones cause—is not caused necessarily by the activities of Pacific Island nations themselves, but is more so caused by industrial nations. When the Pacific Island nations talk about industrial nations, they look to New Zealand, their neighbour, they look to Australia, their closest neighbour, and then to other countries in the vicinity of the Asia-Pacific region.

I think this legislation is an opportunity for us because when it comes to addressing climate change, it is a leadership issue. It requires individuals to stand up and be counted. It requires Governments to stand up and be counted. The Pacific Island nations have for many, many years attempted to voice this at the highest levels, at the international forums. Whether they be the United Nations General Assembly, or whether they be with international organisations such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, or with Parliamentarians for Global Action, they take every opportunity to try to raise this. Sadly, the industrial nations do not necessarily support that voice. They might shake hands and pat people on the back, but they do not take a strong view in support of this. I think this legislation is an opportunity for us.

It is a simple matter: we are asking that our officials report to the Government of the day in terms of how our internal actions, whether they be economic activities or whether they be environmental activities—how does that impact on the region? How does that impact on our Pacific Island neighbours? I think it is a good starting point, because with that information the Government of the day—whether it be National or whether it be Labour in 2017; whatever—can use that information to develop strategies, to develop policy ideas, to even target aid projects in the region, projects that will help it to address and mitigate some of the impact of climate change. I am not saying that what we will do is simply find the answers to all the issues that the Pacific Islands are experiencing. What I am saying, as a close neighbour, in recognition of our constitutional relationship with many of the Pacific Islands and in recognition of this special relationship that we have with the Pacific, is that I think that we have an opportunity, a leadership opportunity, to know the state of our internal affairs and how they impact on our neighbours.

I was talking to a member of the New Zealand First Party earlier, Denis O’Rourke, and what is interesting is that he just came back from an international conference where the same issue was raised. We would say that countries like Tuvalu and Kiribati are going underwater. There are huge questions that we have got to start asking ourselves as to where these people go in the event that they do get swallowed up. So issues like who then owns that piece of sea water, issues like how do we protect the ocean and the many benefits that it contributes to people—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I do have a dilemma here. The member is straying outside the debate. I was just about to stand up when I had some advice from my right that I should do so, and I did not want to be seen to be being advised by members on my right. But Mr Scott was correct, and the member is straying—it is just that he was disorderly in indicating it.

The point I am making is that I am asking the Government to support this Supplementary Order Paper to amend clause 7 and clause 10. It is nothing; it is simply asking the officials to report on our state of affairs—our internal activities, whether they be economic or environmental—what kind of impact that does have on the climate, on the Pacific region, on its climate, on the ocean, on its ecosystem, and on the people themselves, because at some time in the future we have got to prepare for that impact.

I want to read out a statement that Peter Dunne wrote in his policy of last year. He said: “…the benefits of responsible and practical action now will be realised in the long-term health and prosperity of New Zealand’s environment and its people.”, and I would say not only New Zealand’s environment and its people but also the environment of the Pacific region. I was told that the environment is a defining issue. If we believe that and we accept that that is genuine, I would ask this Minister for the Environment to respond to say whether he thinks this is a good idea. And if he thinks this is a good idea, then I challenge him to introduce it in the bill in this reading here.

Further, I would say again, as in the very beginning, with the greatest respect to the Minister, the reason why the Labour Party will not support this bill in its entirety is there are many significant individuals who pay attention to our climate and who have an interest in the Government doing the right thing who do not feel confident enough that the bill, as it stands, ensures that we have independence in how it is to be reported, or in the Minister not being able to have an influence on what gets reported. More so, they do not have the confidence that what we are getting in terms of the reports will be of best practice. I think if we are wanting to establish and reaffirm our integrity as a nation that is interested in this affair—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

No, the member has had two calls in a row.

I am going to take a very brief call on this Environmental Reporting Bill in this Committee stage debate just to respond to some things that other members have brought up but also to make a couple of new points of my own. I would like to congratulate the Minister for the Environment on bringing in a very important bill. As I think has been pointed out in this debate, we were left in an anomalous position within the OECD of not having such a framework in place, so it is a credit to this Minister, Nick Smith, and also to the Government that this situation has been remedied.

We have heard suggestions that there may be a lack, perhaps, of neutrality in the setting of the topics of inquiry for these reports. I have to rebut some of those suggestions and, in fact, the very suggestion that it should be officials who are committing to the expenditure of large amounts of taxpayers’ money in commissioning these reports, which I think would be an unfortunate precedent to set. If we look at other comparable legislation, including that governing public scrutiny of our funds in New Zealand around audit, I think it is best that we have elected representatives of the people making those decisions on where we are investing the large amounts of money that it takes to undertake one of these complex synthesis reports. But I would point out that the legislation makes very clear the areas that are to be investigated. These are laid out very clearly in clause 9 in Part 2 of the bill. These are the domains of air, atmosphere and climate, fresh water, land, and marine. These reports will be conducted independently by the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician, two very hard-working public officials. I would also like to pay credit to the other public officials who have given much of their time and worked very, very hard on making sure that this legislation is well drafted and effective.

The content of the reports within each of these domains is also governed by this piece of legislation. It will include a commentary on the state of New Zealand’s environment as a whole but also specifically the aspects of biodiversity and ecosystems, the pressures that may be causing or have the potential to cause changes to the state of our environment in New Zealand, and the impacts that the state of the environment and changes to the state of the environment may be having on our ecological integrity, public health in our country, the economy, Te Ao Māori—and I hope my respected colleague Nuk Korako might comment further on that particular area of content—and also the cultural and recreational values that we derive from our environment.

So to me it is very clear that within the bill there is extensive guidance as to the sorts of things that we want reported on and, within those reports, the key, critical areas that are significant to us as a country. I think there is plenty in there that directs the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician in the right direction when it comes to conducting their investigations, but it is right and proper that an elected representative—a Minister of the Crown—actually sets the specific topics that are pertinent, relative, and topical to the day.

Secondly, just responding to the comments from the previous speaker, Su’a William Sio, and his amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 92, I may well have an answer for his question around what the impacts might be on climate change for the Pacific region by activities conducted in New Zealand, and that is very, very small, obviously. Given we produce less than 1 percent of greenhouse gases within our country and the Pacific region is less than 20 percent of the global region, we can surmise that that is a very small impact. I think it is far more important that we concentrate on reporting within our own jurisdiction and on making sure that we preserve our natural environment here for the enjoyment of New Zealanders. That focus should be retained in the bill, and for that reason I personally do not support Su’a William Sio’s Supplementary Order Paper 92.

I want to deal with some of the issues that the Minister for the Environment raised around clause 18. When you look at the Australian state of the environment legislation, of course, it has got a very different model. It protects the independence of the reporting because there is an independent panel of experts who do the reporting. [Interruption] I have just been looking at the legislation, Minister Nick Smith, so I am surprised you are shaking your head. Those people might be appointed by the Minister but they are independent, so here, in this system, we are having Government agencies do the reporting. Therefore, in our view, there needs to be independence in the way the topics are set, which is why Supplementary Order Paper 87 provides for those topics to be set by the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment.

Mr Paul Foster-Bell raised the issue of expenditure. We will shortly be doing—well, we are in the select committee—the review of estimates. That whole process is where we review expenditure, not trying to do it in a back-door way through the state of the environment reports.

There was major concern from a number of submitters about the lack of public confidence and trust in state of the environment reports if Ministers were setting topics, so this Supplementary Order Paper responds to the concerns of submitters. I think, Minister, given your support for collaborative processes for the Land and Water Forum and given the comments made by the Hon Ruth Dyson, this Parliament could support this bill if a more collaborative process was shown and if you took on board the amendments that are being suggested, which are not changing the overall thrust of the bill and are not undermining the need for state of the environment reporting, but are intended to make sure that it is much more robust and that the public have trust and confidence in it.

Why we need that is because of previous examples of political interference, both with the state of the environment report itself in 2007 and examples of the Minister intervening to ensure that things like submissions on the Ruataniwha irrigation project by the Department of Conservation did not proceed. We have, at the moment, huge destruction of wetlands in Northland from swamp kauri mining. The Minister for Primary Industries thinks that is fine. It may well be that the Minister for the Environment does not want wetland loss and destruction reported on, so that is not a topic that is reported on. So if this Supplementary Order Paper were to go ahead, it would make sure there is more independence.

The Minister has referred to the Statistics Act. That Act was passed in 1975. We had a different public sector then. It was much more independent and robust, and much less prone to influence by the Minister or Ministers. In that legislation, Statistics New Zealand sets the topics; the Minister simply approves the surveys. He or she does not actually decide the topics that are to be reported on. In dealing with clause 18, going on to new clause 19, this is a new clause in the Supplementary Order Paper, again to strengthen the bill, by having the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment actually review and report on the Act’s operation, not just provide a commentary on the state of the environment reports.

Another amendment that the Green Party is seeking is in an amendment on the Table of the House. It follows on and complements, I think, the very useful amendment that Su‘a William Sio is proposing, and which the Green Party will be supporting, in terms of looking at the impact on the Pacific region’s climate ecosystems and people. The Green Party also wants greater work done through the state of the environment reporting on greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment requires the Environmental Protection Authority to produce and publish a report at least 6 months after the Act comes into force that lists the hundred largest emitters of greenhouse gas. The Environmental Protection Authority already collects this information on emitters but it does not release it publicly, and we think it would help New Zealand do its fair share in reducing emissions and helping to stabilise the climate, preventing runaway climate change, if we knew the source of emissions for our major emitters, and what organisations are responsible for those. It would help inform the development of Government policy and it would help inform the New Zealand public.

The Minister has pointed to Australia. Well, there is a similar requirement to the one in this amendment in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act in Australia. We are going to Paris later this year, yet this Government is failing to actually have a decent target for reducing emissions. If we have reporting in this bill on the major emitters, we will have a better understanding of the source of those emissions.

I am just moving now to some of the other changes that Supplementary Order Paper 87 provides. One of them is to ensure that where there are any gaps or limitations in the data that is the subject of reports, that is identified in both the synthesis and the domain reports, so that the public can understand those gaps and so that we have a continuous feedback loop that leads to improvement in future reports, because where gaps are identified, then agencies can take it upon themselves to fill those gaps in terms of future monitoring and reporting.

Again, that responds to some of the concerns of submitters about the very narrow range of matters that are to be reported on in clause 18 and the thresholds there, which are quite high, because if a pressure topic or impact topic is to be reported on, it has got to affect significant areas or significant resources or numbers of people. There may well be new pests in the marine sphere or on land that are affecting only a small number of species at the moment and having limited impact, but it may be of value in the reporting to ensure that their impacts are described so that there can be a prompt response. If you have an assurance that gaps in the reporting are to be addressed, then those sorts of issues can be dealt with.

At the moment we continue to oppose this bill. We would encourage the Minister to respond to the Supplementary Order Paper and to recognise that it is much better to have legislation that has the support of the whole Parliament, and to recognise that that can be achieved by responding in a positive manner to the constructive amendments that both the Labour Party and the Green Party have put forward in a genuine attempt to improve the bill and to make sure that it is robust, that it provides for independent state of the environment reporting, and that there are improvements to reports year on year because gaps are noted and identified.

I just want to make a quick intervention to put the record straight. The member who has just spoken, Eugenie Sage, said that the appointment of an independent committee in Australia was in the Australian legislation. That is not true. I have the legislation before me. It makes very plain that the report is produced by the Minister in Australia. The Minister prescribes the regulations. It is true that as a matter of practice in Australia the Minister for the Environment has appointed a committee to be responsible for it. I can just hear the cries of “Foul!” from the Green Party and the Labour Party if this report was to be produced by a committee appointed by me. This report is going to be produced by the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment. The member is simply factually incorrect in what she says of the Australian legislation, and I refer her to section 516 of their Act.

The second point the Green member made was this: the Greens want to include in this legislation the climate change data. Well, actually, this Parliament has passed specific climate change legislation that requires reporting to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We are a Government that is not about repeating bureaucracy. We are not about repeating costs, and where there is solid reporting data that is required in one Act, to repeat it in another Act is exactly what our Government is opposed to.

But let us just test Eugenie Sage’s proposition that we need to publish the exact names of those people who are the biggest greenhouse gas emitters. Well, let us start by asking what the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in New Zealand are. Actually, they are dairy farmers. Farmers make up, with the combination of methane and greenhouse gases, about 43 percent of New Zealand’s emissions. But because it is spread over 30,000 farmers, you are not going to list “Ma and Pa Bloggs: farmers in my electorate” as the big emitters—it is a nonsense. What is the second-biggest sector of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions? The transport sector. Does that mean I am going to have to list the big car that I understand our colleague from New Zealand First drives around? Is he going to be caught on the transport emissions? From what I have read in the newspaper, he has got a real big grunty car. I think it does 16 litres to 100 kilometres, or something of that sort. But let us just test—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: That’s not true.

I apologise to the member.

But, regardless, it is a nonsense, when the transport sector and the agricultural sector are made up of thousands—tens of thousands—of individuals, to somehow pretend, actually, because you have got one factory or one emitter, that they are a substantive part of the problem when they are not. That is just simply typical of an anti-business view from the Greens, rather than actually recognising that all of the science around climate change shows that it is areas like transport, which affects all New Zealanders; it is sectors like the energy sector; and it is areas like agriculture that make up the bulk of the emissions, and for that reason specifically listing the hundred top emitters does not make sense.

When you have the Climate Change Response Act, which has a very high level of integrity about the reporting that is required to be audited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we are not, as a Government, of a mind to repeat the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer of simply regurgitating the same information with amendments to this bill.

I am not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, so in preparing for this Committee stage I was new to the legislation. In looking at Part 2 it did seem clear to me, as someone who is looking at this with fresh eyes, that there is quite a significant internal inconsistency if you read through from clause to clause.

I would like to start off with clause 15, which is titled “Reports to be fair and accurate”. I can certainly understand why this clause is included. It is important that the reports that are compiled by the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician are indeed fair and provide a fair representation of the topics that they have been asked to consider, and, of course, that they are accurate in their use of the data.

But I do wonder exactly—and perhaps the Minister for the Environment may be able to give us some clarity on this—what “fair” means exactly, because sometimes, especially in environmental issues, when you are dealing with the question of what is fair reporting there is an expectation that all points of view will be expressed, even if some of those points of view are in the extreme minority. I think, particularly in respect of the climate change debate—and I think of an outfit in the United States that promotes itself as being fair and balanced—that that will amplify the minority view on climate change: that it is either not occurring or it is not human-induced, even though the overwhelming body of evidence says that climate change is both happening and is induced by human activity.

So I would wonder whether, in requiring reports to be fair, consideration has been given as to what is a fair representation of the variety of views and the variety of evidence that will be provided to the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician in pulling together those reports, and what requirements will be placed on them to provide a balanced representation of those different points of view. Will they be able to say: “Look, the overwhelming bulk of evidence says this one thing, and that’s where we’re going to focus our report.”, or will they be required to bring in information that is perhaps expressed by a minority view and include that in their report? That is a genuine question. I can absolutely understand why that word “fair” is in there, but there can be, perhaps, some unintended consequences of having it there.

Obviously, clauses 14 and 15 combined are designed to ensure that the reporting is independent and that it is accurate and that it does provide a fair picture of the environment from the point of view of the topics that have been chosen. This is, I think, where we begin to get the internal inconsistency in these clauses in Part 2, because clause 14 does require the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician to act independently of any Minister of the Crown. That is what we would expect. If we are going to expect the public to rely on these reports to give a fair and accurate representation of environmental issues, then the public will absolutely expect these reports to be free from political interference. That is clearly what the point of clause 14 is—to ensure that this reporting is done in a manner that is free from political interference. That is all well and good, until we look at section 18 and its impact on section 12, section 13, and others.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Clauses, I think the member means.

Clauses—certainly.

Clause 12 says that the process for producing an environmental report involves two steps. The topics to be reported on are prescribed by regulations made under clause 18, and, of course, we have had some discussion about the impact of clause 18, which is that the very topics that are chosen are chosen by the Minister. So, immediately, clauses 14 and 15 are undermined by that requirement in clause 12 for the topics to be prescribed under the regulations, as it says here, in clause 18. So that drive for political independence and for it to be a fair and accurate representation is immediately undermined by the fact that the whole report, when it is initiated, is initiated by the Minister and the fact that the topics that the report will address are chosen by the Minister.

Paul Foster-Bell said it is important that the decision to undertake a report be made by elected representatives. He suggested that there would be a considerable amount of expenditure involved in compiling these reports and that it would be inappropriate for unelected officials to initiate a process that requires significant public expenditure. But, in fact, what initiates the reports is this legislation. It says in this legislation that those reports must be produced every 3 years. So the decision to spend public funds on providing the reports is actually made by us, the members of Parliament who are voting on this legislation. So that meets Mr Foster-Bell’s test of whether or not that expenditure should be initiated by elected members of Parliament. I see the Minister shaking his head, and I would be interested to hear his view on why my interpretation of that is incorrect.

I say to Mr Foster-Bell that although I understand the view he has expressed, I think it is satisfactorily dealt with by the fact that the initiation of the report itself comes out of this legislation, passed by Parliament. The question is what issues and topics those reports should address. Indeed, they should be the important issues of the day. They should be the issues that the data tells us are the issues of the day. They should, to a certain extent, be the issues that the public tell us are the issues of the day that should be important for the Government’s long-term planning around the state of the environment. But the problem with introducing ministerial responsibility for choosing those topics is that there may be a reason why a particular Government, led by any party, may wish to focus more attention on some topics, and may wish, in fact, to focus attention away from certain topics. That undermines the faith that the public can have in the quality of these reports and the usefulness of these reports for long-term planning, not only by the Government but by other agencies as well.

I note that a lot of these issues were raised by a variety of submitters, some of whom are Officers of Parliament who have absolutely every reason to encourage us to pass legislation that is robust, and will result in reports that are robust, and that the public can have a lot of faith in.

Although clause 12, clause 13, clause 14, and clause 15 all drive this idea that there should be independence, accuracy, and freedom from ministerial influence, that is all pulled down by clause 18 and the fact that it is the Minister, by Order in Council, who gets to choose the topics. I see that as a massive internal inconsistency within this legislation, and that is the principal reason why the members who represented us at the select committee and heard all those submissions came to the view that Labour is not able to support Part 2 of this legislation. Much as we support the idea of environmental reporting and had high hopes for this legislation, it is with great sadness that because of some of those inconsistencies, we are not able to continue to support this bill.

Kia ora. E te Kaiwhakahaere, e mihi atu ki a koe anō. I just would like to take this short call on the Environmental Reporting Bill, particularly looking at the fact that was highlighted by the Minister for the Environment, and it has been highlighted also throughout our select committee process, that this bill is not just about our environment; it is also about the state of our environment. And I think that is a really important and pertinent point.

Moving to Part 2 of the Environmental Reporting Bill, it was a great pleasure to be able to be part of the Local Government and Environment Committee to discuss, debate, and find consensus on this bill, particularly around two things: the Treaty of Waitangi clause, around instead of—it just sort of mentioned the principles—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! [Interruption] Order! When I stand up, the member sits down. It is really important when he is speaking to Part 2 of the bill that he does not speak to the bits that are in Part 1, and he has just started doing that.

Moving on from that part on the Treaty through to Te Ao Māori, I want to speak about some of the amendments before I get there, though. Probably the first one was the amending of clauses 7 and 10 to replace “economic benefits” with “economy” so that both positive and negative economic impacts would be included in the domain and synthesis reports as well. But moving to the next part of it, which concerns the first domain report, the amendment would remove a specific date for the release of the first synthesis report from clause 8 and then instead change clause 11 to require that the first domain report be published within 18 months of the bill’s commencement.

The next part of it that I want to talk about is clause 18, and then also specifically about subclause (3). Basically, that amendment concerns the expansion of entities. When we look at it, that subclause (3) talks about expanding the number of entities to be consulted before recommending regulations. What that subclause has done is added the general public, local authorities, and iwi as well. I think that is an important consideration here, because the fact is that this is where we start talking in Part 2 about Te Ao Māori, which is very much, if you translate that, around the Māori world view—just to highlight that fact that Māori can bring a unique perspective on environment. Te Ao Māori, the Māori world view, has an important contribution to make to our environmental management, just thinking along the lines of he tikanga tuku iho nā ngā matua tīpuna kua wehe atu ki te pō [it is a custom handed down by the ancestral forefathers who have departed to the void.] That means that those tikanga, those ways, particularly when we talk about the environment, have been handed down from one generation to the next.

That Te Ao Māori interpretation also, to me, in this bill is reflected in that Māori have the opportunity to be able to have their input, particularly when we look at the framework, when we look at the part where we have where the pressures are, what is the state of them, and then what is the impact. When we look at the impact of that, particularly around when Māori look at their supply of mahinga kai, and all of those traditional things, that actually revolves around water. So that, to me, is a very, very significant part of the bill—that Te Ao Māori can actually be included in this. Just the analogy when we talk about Papatūānuku, the earth mother, and particularly the analogy of that when we look at relating it to the body of a human being, particularly around when we look at the rivers, the major waterways being the arteries, and then all of those tributaries coming off them, which are the veins—the fact is that we need to monitor it. That monitoring is really part of what we are trying to do here.

The next part that I want to talk about is that insert. The previous speaker on the other side of the Chamber, Iain Lees-Galloway, was talking very much about political accountability. If we look at this part of it, we have added subclause (1A) in clause 6 and subclause (2) in clause 9, which would require Ministers to present reports jointly to the House. Political accountability there, I believe, is very much encouraged. The next part of it is around the funding initiatives as part of the bill. Looking at that, increasing funding for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, that is to encourage and assist the reporting function, so the commissioner is encouraged but not required to report on an environmental report. So clause 16 is also amended to clarify that the Government Statistician could potentially withhold access to untested and unpublished data prepared for the purpose of this legislation, to maintain the independence and the integrity of the report. That was really important too because it was something that was highlighted on the other side of the Chamber around the integrity of the reporting itself.

Finally, just to cover off, is that in the bill itself—and particularly in Part 2—by mandating credible environmental information, an accurate picture of the environment is created so debate can focus more on the environmental issues themselves, rather than on whether the reporting is accurate, comparable, or representative, which is what has previously occurred. Without genuinely independent, regular reporting on the state of the environment, we risk again falling into bad habits of the past and simply responding to the next crisis that comes along. That is what has been happening in some ways to date. National is taking proactive steps through this bill to ensure that this does not occur, or does not continue to occur. The scope of the reports mandated by the bill will be comprehensive, going beyond the programme of environmental indicator updates that the Ministry for the Environment has produced in recent years. The other parts to that are that the reports will cover both the state of the environment and the pressures driving environmental trends and their impacts, through easy-to-understand information. Importantly, it will show us where we need to make the improvements.

The final part—and it was highlighted by the Minister, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, previously—is that New Zealand is one of the very few countries, particularly within the OECD, without a legislative basis for national environmental reporting. This new environmental reporting system will for the first time give us the robust basis on which to track how we are performing compared with our trading partners, facilitating international benchmarking and comparability. Where possible, the system will align with international reporting. That is really just a short overview, particularly around what this bill is about, some of the important parts of it—particularly in Part 2—and then what is actually trying to be achieved through this legislation. Kia ora.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am just checking whether anyone else was seeking the call, and if there was not—there was.

The Green member Eugenie Sage has put in a range of amendments that the Labour Party supports. Eugenie Sage also said that those amendments were in response to submissions made by the public. I simply make reference to one group that made a submission on a range of clauses—clauses 7, 12, 13, and 16—and that is a group called the Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand. This is a group that has existed since 1972. It is an umbrella body for environmental organisations the length and breadth of New Zealand.

I know that the Minister has responded and rejected the point made by Eugenie Sage, which was that there is a need for independence, and I will tell you why. If you look at clause 7(2), with regard to choosing the national and international standards to measure against, the Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa made this point: who gets to choose these international standards? By all the evidence, based on this bill, it will be the Minister or it will be the Secretary for the Environment who will make this decision. This organisation feels—and I believe the mood that it was in—that whenever the Minister or the head of the department is involved, it is a political environment and, invariably, it is susceptible to the political pressures that could be put upon it.

Clauses 12 and 18 talk about choosing the topics to be reported. Again, this organisation submitted that it felt there was no independence, and in order for this reporting to be independent and to have some integrity so that the public can believe the information that is contained in these reports, it requires an independent assessment. One of the things these scientists submitted was that scientists have other scientists who critique their work, so independence is necessary. What they are saying is that the way the bill is drafted, as it stands, there is too much room for political independence so that there is no oversight as to what topics will be reported upon, and the contents of those reports. I think the Committee fails to recognise that these are simply reports; these are reports that get tabled.

The real crux of the matter comes whether the Government of the day acts on the contents of that particular report. But presently, as it stands, it is simply a report. So those in the environmental community do not feel that the way that the bill sits at the moment provides sufficient confidence to them in order for the public to have confidence that this is genuine, real, substantial information, and that the follow-up work by the Government of the day is to act upon that information. If the information is not provided, then the Government can rightly say: “Well, why should we act on it if that information is not provided?”.

So in terms of the submissions made by the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by Eugenie Sage, I absolutely agree, and we support it on this side of the Chamber, because the big question that remains to be answered is how do we guarantee that the information reported on can be independent, accurate, and trusted by the New Zealand public? When the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, or ECO, made its submission, it felt that there were just too many loopholes in the legislation as it sits for the relevant Minister to provide political pressure, even political pressure not to report or not to provide the information that may assist the Government of the day in making decisions. It then followed that those decisions will be aimed at protecting our environment.

Even the Ombudsman’s office, in a letter, agrees that there is a need to preserve the independence of the reporting process from Ministers. That was the submission made. In relation to clause 12, clause 18, and clause 7(2), I want to restate that point: that for that reason, this side of the Chamber would not be prepared to support this, because without the freedom and without the independent nature of that reporting, the Government of the day can choose for itself what gets reported and the context of that report.

I want to just come back to a comment that Mr Paul Foster-Bell made earlier. He said he believed that the activities of New Zealand, and the way that those activities might contribute to the climate impacts in the Pacific region, will be minuscule, I think—

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: Negligible.

Negligible, OK. Let me just say that in a report by the World Bank, which is called Turn Down the Heat—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to ask the member to sit down. I draw his attention to the fact that he is now wandering way out into the substance of climate change, further than the member did, and much less about measuring in New Zealand, which is the substance of this bill.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek the leave of the Committee, given the length of time we have had on this Committee stage, and our nearly approaching the vote, for, at the conclusion of the member’s speech, all of the votes to be taken on the Committee stage, so that the votes can logically follow on from—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to point out to the member the obvious problem with that, which is that the member’s speech will not conclude tonight, unless he sits down, of course.

I merely wanted to come back to my amendment, which is still in Part 2, which is adding on that particular clause, and that is the point that I want to say—that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that the time has come for me to report progress, and for that reason I have to interrupt the member. I will therefore report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Harmful Digital Communications Bill with amendment, progress on the Environmental Reporting Bill, and no progress on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.