METIRIA TUREI
Mr SPEAKERIt concerns a quote yesterday from a press release of mine, and I wish to clarify any misunderstanding about the quote.
Leave is sought to make a personal explanation about that matter. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The honourable member may proceed.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It should be a personal statement about the member, not about other members.
The Minister makes a very good point. I remind the honourable member that a personal explanation must be about a personal matter. It should not start by talking about someone else; it should start by talking about the member.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is, of course, my first personal statement to the House, and I would seek some guidance. It is difficult to make the personal clarification if the circumstances in which that clarification has to be made are not set out first. So I would seek your indulgence, given that this is my first opportunity to make such a statement, to at least set the frame in which the personal clarification has to be made. Otherwise it would make no sense.
I think it would be reasonable for the honourable member to set out the matter that caused her concern, without necessarily naming another member of the House. It is not about another member of the House; it is the issue that the member is making the personal explanation about.
Certainly. Yesterday, in answer to a supplementary question, a Minister quoted from a press release of mine, and I quote from the supplementary answer: “I have seen a report in the form of a press release in support of that goal from a very surprising source. In 2006 the person concerned”—that is me—“issued a press release about the requirement for Solid Energy to move 250 Augustus snails to make way for the expansion of Solid Energy’s Stockton mine. That person said ‘This case clearly shows that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species in such a way that all parties are happy,’ ”. That was the content of the quote.
That comment and that quote were taken out of context. I did not refer, in that quote, to the removal of Powelliphanta augustus by Solid Energy at its Stockton mine. In fact, my reference was to Mount Burnett, some 100 kilometres from the Stockton mine. In the Mount Burnett case I was referring to the then Minister of Conservation who had prevented an area of Powelliphanta habitat from being mined, against the wishes of the mining company. I used this as an example to contrast with that Minister’s argument that in the Mount Augustus case, removing the species to allow mining was “the only possible decision”. I simply wish to ensure that members have a correct understanding of my statement in relation to the impact of mining on conservation land and the protection of endangered species.