1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
What did he mean by his statement that the Government will make significant changes to schedule 4 to allow mining “notwithstanding the public consultation process”?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
I think the member should read the full quote. I said it is my expectation that the Government will act on at least some of the recommendations in the discussion document, because new mining on Crown land had the potential to increase economic growth and create jobs. Presumably, that is why the previous Labour Government approved 118 new permits for mining on Crown land, including the Paparoa National Park.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that none of the land that was approved for mining under Labour was in fact protected land under schedule 4, and can he confirm that the public can have no confidence in the consultation process, because he said he was going to go ahead regardless and because the public know that long before they were brought into this discussion National had made a secret deal with the mining interests to mine in protected areas, even before the election?
I can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition is desperate to get on television if he wants to make things up.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did that answer in any way address anything I asked the Prime Minister about? [ Interruption]
Mr SPEAKERI warn Government front-benchers on this occasion that while a point of order was being heard, they were interjecting loudly, which they know is totally unacceptable. I think, on reflection, that the Leader of the Opposition would realise that his question was fairly provocative, and it provoked a fairly strong response. If the member wants a serious answer, he has to be a bit more constrained in his questions.
How happy is the Prime Minister with the process for mining in protected areas when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has been absolutely scathing about the inadequacy of that process, and said, for example, that the Government document is “vague and rudimentary”, and fails to provide “a coherent argument” for mining protected land?
It strikes me that the commissioner was making a very circular argument. The commissioner was saying that we should remove land only where the mineral value outweighs the conservation values. Actually we cannot determine that unless we do remove things from schedule 4.
What is the Prime Minister’s response to the criticism by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that National, in watering down the powers of the Minister of Conservation, has both compromised her role and unfairly privileged mining interests?
Does the Prime Minister intend to open up for mining currently protected land beyond the 7,000 hectares already announced; if so, does that mean that the proposal concerning 467,000 hectares that Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson took to Cabinet on 10 February this year are also vulnerable to mining?
No, and I think that the documents the Government released showed how conservative the Government has been, because the officials actually proposed 467,000 hectares. The Government agreed on 7,000 hectares and it is adding a further 12,000. If anything, that shows what a conservative Government we are.
In light of that answer, who signed the paper? Was it Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson, or some anonymous official?
Well, I guess the one difference between this Government and the previous administration is that we—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very straightforward question: who signed the paper? That answer does not address the question. It goes off on an irrelevant tangent. [ Interruption]
Again, it was Government members interjecting on a point of order. The issues are strongly debated; I accept that absolutely. But the House must treat these matters with some dignity. Government backbenchers will not interject while a point of order is being heard. The honourable Leader of the Opposition asked a question that it would be reasonable to answer. I ask the Prime Minister to do that.
The Ministers signed the papers. The difference between this Government and the previous Government is that we take things to Cabinet and have a genuine conversation. Under the previous Government, those members were all a bunch of muppets who just agreed with what the Prime Minister thought. [ Interruption]
Chris TremainOn this occasion I say to the senior Government whip that when the Speaker is on his feet, there will not be any interjection. That kind of comment will not lead to good order in the House, and I think the Prime Minister knows that. I ask him not to go over the top like that. It is unfair. Does the honourable Leader of the Opposition have further questions?
This time it was both front benches. I ask members to please be a little more reasonable and respect the House a little more.
Jacinda ArdernI seek leave for the Conservation (Requirement for Special Approval for Changes to Schedule 4) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for its first reading on 5 May.