1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she have confidence in the Minister of Conservation; if so, why?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.
Does she agree with the comments of the Hon Dover Samuels, who said he was “galled” by the Minister of Conservation’s vetoing the Whangamata marina, and that “Ministers should not be allowed to overturn the decision of a jury or a court. It undermines the integrity and the process”; if not, will she be taking any action to discipline Mr Samuels for his very public criticism of a ministerial colleague, which is a clear breach of the principle of Cabinet responsibility?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Of course, the Minister of Conservation did not overturn the decision of the court. The court makes a report. The Minister must then exercise a judgment on restricted coastal activities. I am absolutely amazed that the party that wrote the law and passed it does not believe that.
Does she agree with the Hon Dover Samuels that it is galling that the Department of Conservation bureaucrats had an unfair advantage in the Resource Management Act process for the Whangamata marina because “they could go running off to their Minister to have decisions overturned if they did not agree with the decision of the Environment Court.”; if not, why not?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Under the law, the Minister makes a decision. He gets advice. I am not sure who else is supposed to advise him if it is not the Department of Conservation.
Does she agree with the comments of the Hon Dover Samuels that the “integrity” of the ministerial veto process under the Resource Management Act as it applied to the Whangamata marina needed to be “reconsidered”; if so, what action does she intend to take as a result?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
As I said yesterday, it is an entirely open matter for debate as to whether the Minister’s power should, in law, be exercised at the beginning or the end of the process. That is what Mr Samuels is commenting on.
Rodney HideWhen the Prime Minister is judging her Ministers’ performances, why does she apply different standards to different portfolios, such as she did yesterday when she said David Parker’s behaviour was not good enough for him to be Attorney-General but OK for him to be the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Transport, and then again last year when she judged David Benson-Pope to be unsuitable to be the Associate Minister of Education but OK to be the Minister for Social Development and Employment and Associate Minister for the Environment; and where in the hierarchy of ministerial standards does the Prime Minister’s job sit—at the top or at the bottom?
Madam SPEAKERThat question is extremely wide of the original question. If the member would like to—not taking one of his supplementary questions—focus the question on the primary question, which deals with the Minister of Conservation.
When the Prime Minister is judging her Ministers’ performances, such as the Minister of Conservation, why does she apply different standards to different portfolios, as she has done with David Parker, when she said that his standard of behaviour was not good enough to be Attorney-General but OK to be the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Transport; like she did last year with David Benson-Pope, when she said his behaviour was not good enough for him to be the Associate Minister of Education but OK for him to be the Minister for Social Development and Employment and the Associate Minister for the Environment; and where in this hierarchy of ministerial standards does the Prime Minister’s job sit—at the top or at the bottom?
The final part of your question, Mr Hide, is out of order, but the first part is fine. So I ask the Prime Minister to address that part of the question.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I judge the Minister of Conservation on how he does his job. He has a difficult job to do. He must make a decision on restricted coastal activity at the end of quite a long decision-making process. [ Interruption] For the former Minister, who administered this law, to keep going on in a way that indicates he has no knowledge of it at all is reprehensible.
Can the Prime Minister confirm media reports that she fully supported the Hon Chris Carter’s handling of the Whangamata marina issue, and does she acknowledge that Mr Samuel’s comments regarding Mr Carter are, in fact, therefore an attack on her as well?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
To the best of my knowledge the Minister has followed a proper process.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have today asked the Prime Minister four supplementary questions. Three of the questions asked whether she agreed with the Hon Dover Samuels. She did not answer those questions at all. The fourth question asked about media reports relating to what Mr Carter said and what she herself said. She did not answer that question, either.
The Prime Minister did address the questions, and I listened to the supplementary questions closely. I think it is unfortunate that normally more than one question was involved. So would the member like to redirect his question?
Yes. I remind members that all members are heard in silence. I also remind the member before he begins that members can ask for opinions, but Ministers do not necessarily have to give them. That is what the Standing Orders state. As I said, if we wanted only factual questions and factual answers, then we would change the Standing Orders.
Can she confirm media reports that she fully supported the Hon Chris Carter’s handling of the Whangamata marina issue, and does she acknowledge that Mr Samuel’s comments regarding Mr Carter are therefore an attack on her, as well?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I can confirm that to the best of my knowledge Mr Carter followed a proper process.