Environmental Reporting Bill

It is an honour to take a call on Part 2 of the Environmental Reporting Bill, and that will become a bit more apparent as I continue through my speech. I do want to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 92 under the name of Su’a William Sio, which seeks to make amendments to clauses 7 and 10 and, in a nutshell, that is by inserting within the bill provisions to include the state of New Zealand’s economic environmental activities and the impacts on the Pacific region, climate, ecosystems, and its people. I think that is a very important addition to this piece of legislation and one that I hope that the Government will consider, because it is not just the environment of New Zealand as we know it but also of our Pacific neighbours and some of those Pacific nations that New Zealand has responsibility for.

As I mentioned, it does include a responsibility for this nation to take into account the Pacific’s climate and its ecosystems, and I would like to take this opportunity, if it is OK, to pay tribute to someone from the Tokelau islands who passed away in the last week and who used to be the Faipule or leader of the atoll that my parents came from, Fakaofo—that is, Foua Toloa. He was, as I say, the leader of the Tokelauan atoll of Fakaofo. He also served on the Global Ocean Commission, and he crusaded throughout his life in dedication to the health and well-being of the Tokelau islands around the environmental, economic, and social stability of that nation. I think the measure that has been posed by Su’a William Sio will be very well looked upon by Foua, who passed away this time last week. To ensure within this Environmental Reporting Bill some kinds of measures to make sure that we can look after the Pacific is something that I think Foua would be very, very supportive of.

Can I take this opportunity to pass my condolences and the love of this House to his family: to Logo, his wife; to their six children; and especially to his brother Luther, whom we had been dealing with in the last couple of weeks as Foua fought the last stages of cancer and passed away. The health of the oceans was something that was very big to him and during last year he gave a very good speech to the Global Ocean Commission to make sure that not just this nation but all nations take action to make sure that the health of the Pacific Ocean and other oceans is there for not just our generation but generations to come.

I think we are seeing some things happen in the Pacific Islands and the Pacific Ocean that most New Zealanders, if they knew what was going on, would be very, very disturbed by. I think this Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Su’a William Sio makes sure that this piece of legislation does not pertain just to what is going on here in New Zealand but also to its territories and the Pacific Ocean, and we have a big interest in what goes on there. So I would hope that members on the other side of the Chamber would take that into consideration because it does take on some of the responsibilities that this nation has to some of those smaller nations, and we have talked about them within another piece of legislation—the likes of Tokelau, the likes of the Cook Islands, and the likes of Niue, which we have a very special relationship with. So I would to like to commend my colleague Su’a William Sio for making sure that the environmental activities that we undertake and the economic activities that we undertake are taken into consideration when we look at what is happening in the Pacific and how that is affecting the ecosystems in the Pacific and, as I mentioned, especially the oceans.

This is going to be only a 5-minute speech but I did just want to again pass on this House’s recognition of the contribution that Foua made to the Tokelauan community here in New Zealand, and to that of the community, the very small community of around 1,500, on the three atolls themselves, especially when it came to ensuring the environmental future of the oceans around the Tokelau islands, and we wish his family all the love and respect that we afford them.

I rise to take a call on the Environmental Reporting Bill, particularly on Part 2. Can I start by just acknowledging the comments from Kris Faafoi and, obviously, express condolences from this side of the Chamber on his loss—obviously, of an advocate for the Tokelauan community.

In respect, though, of the specific Supplementary Order Paper that he raised, I certainly hold the view that the priority of this bill is, quite rightly, New Zealand and should remain New Zealand. The various impact categories that the various synthesis reports and domain reports are to cover, as expressed by Part 2, should be focused, quite rightly, on New Zealand, so in that respect, I am not swayed that we should widen the scope at this point in time, in terms of the enabling legislation to the Pacific Islands and the broader South Pacific community. That said—I think, over time, as the various synthesis reports are produced every 3 years—who is to say that in the future those synthesis reports might not talk to the interrelationship between the New Zealand environmental position and those of our Australasian and Pacific neighbours? Into the future, that may well be a part of the synthesis report.

Specifically, in respect of Part 2, there are a couple of points that I would like to note. I appreciate that there has been some conversation on this already among members of the select committee. I think the changes to clause 7 were useful, particularly around providing clarity on the specific impact categories that came from our select committee deliberations. With regard to the previous clause 7(1)(c)(iii), which stated “economic benefits derived from utilising natural resources:”, I think it was quite right that submitters to our collective deliberations pointed out that this was the only category that referred to benefits, and the new wording that we have in that clause is more neutral. It specifically says that the economy just needs to be one of the categories considered.

Also, the introduction of Te Ao Māori—the Māori World—view, again, reflected significant feedback from the submitters to the process: that the language that the original bill used was perhaps not quite as comprehensive as it needed to be in order to capture that particular component, and, of course, we are all pretty comfortable with the new proposed wording.

I notice clause 8. It is very good to see the change there in respect of the first synthesis report now being required to be published not later than 3 years after the date of the first domain report. That makes sense. Further on, in clause 8(2), we have a clarification of the timing in respect of the first domain report, and then that triggers the requirement to have our first synthesis report within 3 years. So I think that is very useful. Under the domain reports in clause 9(2), I think the introduction of the requirement “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.” is also a very helpful addition, in terms of transparency and public awareness of the outcomes of these particular reports.

In terms of clause 13, we had quite a long debate and discussion, ably assisted by officials helping us through this particular challenge, on the roles of the Secretary for the Environment and, in particular, the Government Statistician, and on the requirement to ensure the independence of those two through the environmental reporting framework. We had quite a lot of debate about that. A number of submitters wanted to mandate explicitly that the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment seek expert advice. I think that what we have here does enable the Government Statistician to be able to seek that advice. They are able to utilise expertise from other agencies. Certainly, I feel that they have enabled, through this proposed bill, the capacity to be able to get the information that they need. It is certainly my view that clause 14 and the rather explicit duty to act independently provide the adequate safeguards to protect independence for both the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment.

We had a significant debate over the original clause 16, “Disclosure of information”. As the select committee has deliberated, we have seen a significant change to that clause. Essentially, there was a long debate about the ability to be able to disclose information and analysis to the public and about whether that was an open right and obligation all through the process. Clearly, we felt that it would be appropriate to have in some part of that process—particularly around untested information that needed to stay protected, as they tested their methodology and tested the ultimate conclusions of the report—a requirement for that definition of untested information to stay outside the public domain as the reports were being developed. I think that is a sensible way through. It focuses just on data and statistics and findings that have not been published previously, and it does create, I think, the opportunity to protect the independence and the integrity of environmental reporting and does not hinder access. This untested information is, of course, time bound, and once the publication ultimately becomes public in the public domain, then, of course, the release of that background information is enabled. So this is a particular subset of information that is required to be kept out of the public domain, as it is part of pulling together that final report with the integrity and robustness that is required.

My last comment relates to clause 18. I appreciate that there has been quite a lot of debate about this, but I would like to add my voice to that. Clearly, a number of submitters opposed clause 18 as outlined. We have heard some very strong and impassioned views: that Ministers setting topics is incompatible with independent environmental reporting. I am not swayed by that view. I was not at the start, and I am still not swayed. In my view, it is absolutely appropriate for Ministers to be able to hold a view on the topics for these reports, within the tight parameters of the clauses that are listed in clause 18. The topics are outlined. The robust data and statistical methodology is outlined, plus there is a significant requirement for consultation. I am simply just not swayed by the view that somehow that is an environment for an overt politicisation of the process. If you move to the specifics, particularly around the topics, clause 18(2) states that the Ministers must be satisfied “that any—(a) pressure topic or impact topic affects significant areas, resources, or numbers of people: (b) topic can be measured with robust statistical methods: (c) pressure topic is closely related to any state topic…”.

In essence, what this is saying is that we have a framework that, in my view, materially constrains a Minister to be able to focus on signing off or proposing a topic within that framework. Bearing in mind that both the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Statistics have an obligation under this to consult with the Government Statistician, the commissioner, the public, iwi authorities, and local authorities, that is a very robust obligation on the executive to consult widely on what those topics should be. I have a lot of confidence that, ultimately, we will get an outcome here that is sensible and that delivers a significant improvement to the reporting on the state of the environment in this country.

In conclusion, it is worth repeating that this is another step of reform in a Government that has delivered significant reform in the reporting of the environmental state of this country, enabling us to have a data-informed, data-enriched discussion.

I would agree with the comments of the previous speaker, Todd Muller, that the Local Government and Environment Committee did improve clause 16. But the fact is that it highlights one of the deficiencies in this bill—that it is the Ministry for the Environment that is going to be responsible for collating the state of the environment information, along with Statistics New Zealand. Of course, the Ministry for the Environment is primarily a policy agency. It lacks the technical capacity to do this work on state of the environment reporting. It is going to be relying very much on the information that is collected, the data that is collected, by other agencies such as regional councils, Crown research institutes, and the like. So that is why, in Supplementary Order Paper 87, which is in my name, we are proposing a further change to clause 16 that would ensure the information can be withheld by the Government Statistician only if it has been collected exclusively for the purposes of state of the environment reporting and this bill.

One of the problems that a lot of the submitters raised was that clause 16 potentially constrains the release of environmental information that other agencies collect. So although the clause has certainly been improved, it has not been improved enough and we would encourage Government members to support the Supplementary Order Paper. Given that the Government members voted down the amendments on Part 1, I am not encouraged to think that they will do anything different this time. I think that highlights one of the problems with this Government. It is a Government of “No”. It has rejected Supplementary Order Papers previously. It has highlighted the fact that it does not want to work collaboratively with other parties.

The amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 87 were put forward in the spirit of compromise. They were not the major changes that the Green Party wanted to this bill, but they were put forward in the hope that across this Parliament we could get a cohesive, coherent agreement on this legislation so that it is less vulnerable to changes under future Governments, but the Government members have rebuffed that in the voting on Part 1. That is really disappointing when comprehensive reporting on the state of our environment is quite critical to a better understanding, so that we get good policy, and because the health of the environment contributes majorly to the health of the economy.

Another concern that we have about this bill is in relation to clause 18. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said in her 2010 report on state of the environment reporting: “The need for trust and transparency in state of the environment reporting is critical if it is to be taken seriously.”, and “In order [for it] to be trusted, [that] reporting requires independence, accountability, and technical capacity.” The history of state of the environment reporting under the Ministry for the Environment has been very stop-start in terms of progress. There was work done between 1996 and 2002 on developing some environment performance indicators, but that abruptly stopped in 2002. We have seen one nationwide report in 1997 and another one 10 years later in 2007 with a major chapter missing.

If the Ministry for the Environment is going to have responsibility here—rather than the Environmental Protection Agency, which has got much more independence and much more technical capacity—then it is going to have to substantially lift its game, because the work it has done to date has had major failings in it. That change in environmental performance indicators—the lack of consistency across the country—has been a major shortcoming.

One of the other areas of unease, and what we have seen when we have had Ministers being involved in agencies that do environmental reporting, is a failure to do that work. In Environment Canterbury, under elected councillors, a comprehensive, region-wide, state of the environment report was published in 2009. Under commissioners we have seen no region-wide state of the environment report, so Cantabrians and New Zealanders generally are kept in the dark about the state of water quality and the decline there. That is one of the other reasons we are concerned by this lack of independence in clause 18—by having the Ministers set the topics for environmental reporting and regulations, it lacks the independence required.

I would like to respond to some of the speeches made by the members opposite with regard to clause 18 of the Environmental Reporting Bill and especially the question of independence when it comes to the choosing of topics under that clause. In doing so I would have five questions that I think the people of New Zealand, some of whom may be watching this debate, should ask themselves in relation to that clause.

The first one is why it should be just two Ministers who should choose those topics, when, clearly, much better options exist. I think that is a question that those members on the opposite benches have not properly answered and that I have not heard answered yet. Fundamentally, there are two alternatives being put forward, both of which seem to me to be better. One is that proposed by Eugenie Sage, which would be for the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician to jointly make those decisions. If that was the case, we could then guarantee independence and transparency. Alternatively, there could actually be a schedule to the Act, which would then have to be changed every 3 years. That would not be a bad thing because it would involve the whole of Parliament in doing that, and, after all, every 3 years is not so frequent that it would be impracticable. I think both of those would be superior to what is provided here.

The second question I would ask is why those members opposite feel that the regime set up in clause 18 is indeed a robust one. That is a word that they have used and that I have heard several of them use. When you look at clause 18(2), in particular, you see that the language used is, for example, in paragraph (a) of clause 18(2), that the Minister must be satisfied that “significant areas, resources, or numbers of people:” are involved, or that in paragraph (b), any “topic can be measured with robust statistical methods:” and so on. So it comes down to the personal opinion of the Minister as to whether those Ministers are satisfied with those things. How do we know? What will be the backup information provided so that the rest of us can tell whether the conclusions reached by the two Ministers are reasonable in respect of those issues? There is a complete silence as far as those matters are concerned.

The third question is whether consultation is a substitute for independent decision-making. I particularly remember Minister Smith commenting: “Don’t worry. It’s all OK because we have in clause 18(3) a provision for consultation.”, as though somehow that was a substitute for independent decision-making. Well, consultation is not decision making at all. It is simply an obligation to hear and to take into account the views of others. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is not, in fact, decision making and it makes no genuine contribution to the requirement that many of us are concerned about, which is genuine, independent decision-making. So I say to those members opposite and especially to Minister Smith: you have failed totally to convince me that consultation is in any way a substitute for independent decision-making. I think that the people in the public listening to this debate today would understand exactly what I mean.

The fourth question relates to one particular issue that I have not heard members opposite speak about at all. That is the point that this regime talks about which topics Ministers may choose. But they have not talked about the fact that under this regime Ministers could actually decide not to report at all on some topics and would have no responsibility to discuss them or tell people anything about them, and we would never know. That is not good enough. I think that one of the most dangerous parts of clause 18 in this whole regime would be for Ministers to simply decide that there is a topic here that they do not want discussed in public and to be reported on, and so they will make sure that it does not happen. I think that is one of the big defects in this. The final—

This sort of stuff is pretty important. Mr Bishop always has a go at me whenever I say this, but this whole thing plays into our global brand of “clean, green” and “100% Pure New Zealand”, and we need to get this right. The reason this is so important is that it is our unique selling point. It is what we take to the world. It is what allows us to get a premium for a lot of our products. That is why we have to be seen by the world into which we go forth to be getting this right. If it is seen as dictating or prescribing in a way that is not utilising the expertise we have outside of Government agencies, then it will just not be taken seriously. That is the real concern I have around this. It should not be hard to get this right.

There are a couple of points I would like to pick up on that some of the other speakers mentioned. One of the Government speakers said he felt that the spirit of the Act means that the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment can go out there and utilise outside expertise. But the bottom line is that if the Act does not state that, then there is absolutely no mandate to go and do that. So instead of saying “Yes, well, this is all very well; they can do that because this is what we think the Act allows them to do.”—unless it is stated, then it will not be done.

I pick up a point that Mr O’Rourke made, and that is about consultation. There are a number of cases, and there is one I am dealing with in my electorate at the moment, where the need to consult is seen as a box-ticking exercise. What happens is there are a whole lot of requirements that have to be achieved before anything can happen, and they say “OK, we must consult.” and so on and so forth. They go out, they set up a meeting, you get a few stakeholders come in, and they tick that box and say “That is our consultation. Let’s move on to the next thing.” I do not mean to cast aspersions towards the Government Statistician or the Secretary for the Environment, and I am not in any way suggesting that they will be devious or they will be negligent in the way they do this. All I am saying is that the guidelines, in my view, do not provide a strong enough incentive or a robust enough mandate to use the sort of expertise we have out in our community.

Let us face facts: there are a whole lot of very, very well-educated and highly engaged people who are doing some superb work on our environment and have a whole lot to offer. They may be included in this process. They may be, but there is no requirement to include them, and I suppose that is where I get a little bit concerned. If I look at clause 13, it says “In producing and publishing an environmental report, the Secretary and the Government Statistician must utilise the expertise of the Ministry and Statistics New Zealand.” It would have been quite easy to say “and key stakeholders”, even if key stakeholders were listed in an appendix to the Act. Then it could have been done in a way that brought into the Act itself a whole lot of people who are as passionate about this as we are.

The other thing, as well, is clause 13(3). I just do not think that this is fantastic drafting. It says: “In deciding under subsection (2) what statistics will be used to measure topics, the Government Statistician must …”—so there is a legislative requirement—“follow what he or she believes”—that is a subjective term—“to be best practice principles … and … be satisfied”—which is again subjective—“that the statistics accurately represent the topic they purport to measure.” So you have got some subjective measures with objective requirements there. Again, I think that that just leaves things open to interpretation, and it is very hard to argue from a legislative perspective that someone has got this right or wrong. If it had been more prescriptive, then, in fact, it would be a lot harder to argue that either the secretary or the Government Statistician had done a role that was outside their mandate.

Again, clause 15, “Reports to be fair and accurate”: “The Secretary and the Government Statistician must, in so far as it is reasonably practicable, ensure that all environmental reports published give a fair and accurate representation …”. What happens when we have the term “as it is reasonably practicable” is that, again, it is just very open to interpretation. So what we may get is the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment saying “This is as much as we can do within the time frame we have got.”, and you are going to get others who are as engaged in this, if not more so, saying “No, you haven’t undertaken what we believe is a reasonably practicable process in arriving at your end result.” Again: “reports published give a fair and accurate representation”. I mean, again, who is going to be the chief arbiter of what is fair and what is accurate, especially in an area, again, like I say, where there are a whole lot of people doing academic research and real-life research? I just think there could have been—[Bell rung]—an ability to provide a lot more information on this. Mr Chair, I was waiting for someone else to—

If you want to take a call, you must ask for the call at the time. Ruth Dyson went for the call.

Normally I am very pleased to be able to speak, particularly on a bill such as this one. But it is a really big disappointment to me that as we see New Zealand finally break through into the area of environmental reporting, the key issue that would give this reporting integrity—and that is the independence of the topics that are chosen—has been just cast aside by both Ministers, actually, who have been responsible for this bill, and we are left with this division in Parliament, which I think is unnecessary and could have been easily resolved.

It would have given a great message to New Zealanders that we were very clear about our responsibility in terms of tracking—deciding, you know, across the environmental impact area—what issues we were doing well in, what issues we were doing poorly in, and where we needed to make more progress, and how. But instead we are left with that key issue of division, which is that the Minister, regardless of whether it is a National-led Government or a Labour-led Government, is able to interfere and have political influence over what topics are reported. That totally undermines the integrity and the value of a really important system—what could have been an excellent system.

So I am really disappointed to not be able to support this bill, because I think the theory of it was excellent: that we would have environmental reporting so that we can see as a nation how we are doing on different environmental topics. But instead we have ended up with a reporting system that is very liable to be accused of being a jack-up. You know, a Minister will come under considerable scrutiny and I think New Zealanders will lack the confidence in the system that I wish they were able to be confident in.

We have had some interesting contributions during the earlier part of the debate, and I want to particularly refer to some of the earlier contributions that have been made around my colleague Su’a William Sio’s Supplementary Order Paper 92, which I think is one that the Government should support, and I hope other parties in the Parliament will as well. It looks at environmental reporting and the impact on New Zealand, what difference different topics are making in terms of New Zealand, and it takes that one step further. For me this Supplementary Order Paper 92 actually sets a leadership goal for New Zealand in terms of our impact on our Pacific neighbours. It alters clause 7(2) by replacing “standards.” in paragraph (b) with “standards; and” and then inserting “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems, and its people.” Likewise in clause 10 it replaces “standards.” with “standards; and” and then inserts “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems, and its people.”

I want to first of all acknowledge the contribution Kris Faafoi made in this debate and add my condolences to those that he expressed. It is a very good opportunity for New Zealand to show other Pacific neighbours that we understand the impact of such significant issues as climate change, but of other impacts as well, and that we are prepared to stand up and take a leadership role and look at how our activities impact on our Pacific neighbours.

Paul Foster-Bell, who is a National list member of Parliament, said that he thought New Zealand’s economic and financial contribution to Pacific Islands climate change is negligible. I think that was a very interesting contribution to make. Therefore he dismissed my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper because, he said—he is now an internationally renowned scientist, apparently—our economic and financial contribution to Pacific Islands climate change issues is negligible, and therefore we do not need this Supplementary Order Paper. I think that was a really disappointing contribution to make on an issue that is not a passing one. It is not a minor one. It could affect the very life and livelihood of some of our Pacific neighbours, and I think we need to take the issue more seriously. I know that people in affected Pacific countries do, and they have always looked to New Zealand and to Australia for leadership on environmental—

I will take that word “leadership” and acknowledge the leadership role this Government is playing in bringing in such a bill around an environmental reporting framework. And it is leadership, because all we are hearing from across the floor—it is really about guilt, I suppose, and embarrassment. Nine years Labour had to bring New Zealand up to an OECD standard of an environmental reporting framework—guilt, embarrassment. I mean, from the Green Party it is more about envy and resentment that we are—

💬 Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you can probably predict what it is, but I do not think he has referred to anything in the bill yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sure. Look, this is a debate. I ask the member—and all members—to concentrate on the content of Part 2. If a member has not got anything to contribute, then there is no need for this Part 2 to continue. I would ask you to concentrate on the substantive matter of Part 2 and focus your attention there.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I would just like to look at clause 7(2)(b). It looks at how we are going to compare New Zealand’s environment through this environmental reporting framework with national and international standards. I think that is right. We are very much in a system now—we are in a global system—and it is right that we are going to benchmark ourselves internationally against other countries. Clause 7(2)(a) is also about the synthesis report looking at the changes to the state of the environment.

I am sure many people around this Chamber have been involved in reporting in previous careers. Sometimes it is not exactly about the report at one stage, but about looking at multiples of reporting and looking at that variance between the state of the environment and what has changed. I think that measurement, that variance, will be very important. I think what we need to look at is a common theme as we thematically review the content of these clauses, and look at the content and the topics around the state of New Zealand’s environment and the pressures that may be causing or has the potential to cause, as well as the impacts that the state of the environment and changes to that state may be having on such things as eco-diversity, the economy, and public health. So when you look at those three key areas—the state of the environment, the pressures, and the impacts—it is good to see that that runs through this whole piece of legislation.

It shows up under the synthesis report. It also comes up under the domain report. When we hear about this being self-selection from the Minister or Ministers, I disagree. The domain reports will come up every 6 months, so within a pro rata time frame, they will all come up. The domain reports are of air, atmosphere and climate, fresh water, land, and marine. So those topics and contents of the state, the pressures, and the impact on the environment are also included in the regulations in clause 18. So it is great that we will be able to track those three topics throughout the synthesis and the domain reports.

I think Mr O’Rourke has touched on the independence, but I would disagree with that comment. I think it is very clear, and the consultation the Ministers will go through with the Government Statistician, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the public, iwi authorities, and local authorities is outlined in clause 18(2) and (3). It is quite right that they will think about the issues and the state of the environment to do with that domain, the changes in the state to do with that domain, the pressures that are being put on those domains, and the impacts of those domains on people’s public health, the economy, and the ecosystem. So those themes promote accountability and they promote responsibility. It is very much a merging of three quite separate disciplines, but we need the synergy, going forward, of the Secretary for the Environment teamed up with the Government Statistician—I think we all remember our t-tests from university days—as well as the Minister to drive this forward.

I also would like to highlight the reference to untested data, because I think this is important. We need some protection around untested data. New Zealand’s clean, green image and the economy was at risk of—

In my last contribution I said that there were five questions that I felt the public should ask themselves about clause 18 of the Environmental Reporting Bill and the regime that that sets out. The fifth one that I wanted to ask was about transparency. The first four had been, first, why it should be just two Ministers who make the decision; second, how robust this regime really is in terms of providing a comprehensive way of reporting on our environment; third, whether consultation can really amount to independent decision-making—which it obviously cannot—and, fourth, about the difficult issue of decisions not to report at all and whether anyone would ever know that. I think those are four very important questions that the public of New Zealand should ask about this section and about the Government’s motives in pushing it forward. What could they possibly be? What has the Government got to hide? What is it that it wants to do, other than just make sure that Ministers can secure even more executive power for themselves?

We have seen this Government year after year, bill after bill, issue after issue, coming down on the side of giving more executive responsibility to Ministers and having less democracy, less transparency, and less independent decision-making where it is appropriate in New Zealand. I have not heard any rebuttal of those arguments from the members opposite.

But I did want to just finish off with that fifth question that I said the public should ask themselves, and that is why we are not seeing much more transparency when it comes to regulations that will prescribe the topics to be covered in synthesis reports and the topics to be covered in domain reports. Of course that is very important because without transparency, you do not get public trust and you do not get the public feeling that we have a system with integrity. So it goes right to the root of this particular bill and why we need an environmental reporting system. It has to be one that the public can trust. It has to be one that has integrity. This bill does not deliver it and has not a hope in hell of doing so, quite frankly.

And what does transparency really mean? I will have to give the members opposite a little bit of a lesson in this because they do not seem to understand. In particular, Mr Doocey, when I heard his speech, did not seem to understand it. They use the word, but obviously do not know what they are talking about when they use it. So, first of all, it means that the background information upon which the decision is made must be clear. It must relate to the decision made. That should be set out and understood by everyone, and, of course, it has to show what the decision is in detail and it has to say why the topics selected were the highest in priority and why others were not. And, indeed, it has to say which topics that could have been reported on are, in fact, not going to be reported on. Finally, it has to set out what the discussion is and what the reasoning is that led to the decision being made.

Those are the sorts of considerations that add up to transparency. Those are the sorts of considerations that people want to know about when they look at what the Ministers are doing in their regulations, to decide whether they are the correct decisions or not. That is what transparency means. That is what this bill does not do. It gives executive power to just two Ministers to pass regulations, just giving the conclusion, just saying: “Here is what we have decided—full stop.” And, OK, there is consultation, and that is a step in the right direction, but it is a very, very tiny step compared with what is really required for independent decision-making, and a transparent regime of decision making. This is not what the public is going to see as a result of this bill.

The bill is going to be a failure, simply for those reasons. That is a shame, because we all want a good regime of environmental reporting. So I could compliment the Government for bringing legislation forward that actually creates a system of environmental reporting, but at the same time I would have to say this bill is so defective that there is no way that any responsible party in Opposition could possibly support it.

I move, That the question be now put.