11. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill fulfil his intention to “remove particular regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury”?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
The biggest regulatory issue in Canterbury has been the absence of a regional water plan. Nineteen years after the Resource Management Act was passed there is still no organised system for managing water in that region. I am sure everyone wants to see an effective plan in place, and passing this bill is a step towards achieving just that.
Is the proposed Hurunui irrigation scheme one of the water storage and irrigation projects in Canterbury he would like to see advanced as a result of this bill?
That would depend on whether it could achieve its mixed objectives of preserving the environmental responsibilities that we have along with our economic growth objectives. We will know that only when it has been referred back to the commissioners to review the whole project.
Did any Cabinet Ministers declare conflicts of interest in Cabinet discussions about the Environment Canterbury bill; if so, what were those conflicts of interest?
To the best of my knowledge, I do not recall any conflicts of interest being raised, but I can go and check that for the member.
Is he aware that the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, owns a farm with an irrigation consent in the Hurunui district, and stands to benefit financially if the proposed Hurunui irrigation scheme goes ahead?
I am aware that he owns a farm in that area. I am not aware whether he would benefit from the scheme. The whole matter needs to be considered by the commissioners.
Given that the Environment Canterbury bill will make it easier for the Hurunui irrigation scheme to go ahead, does he believe that David Carter should have declared a conflict of interest in the Cabinet discussions given that he stands to gain financially if the scheme proceeds?
I would have thought that referring a matter to the new commissioners for consideration does not raise a conflict of interest. We can check that with the Cabinet Office, but referring something that might happen does not actually raise a conflict of interest until it does happen.
Mr SPEAKERI apologise to Dr Russel Norman, but I ask the Government backbenchers again to show some courtesy to the member asking the question. I cannot hear his question.
Given this conflict of interest, was it appropriate, at a function on 3 September 2009, for David Carter to approach the people who applied for the water conservation order, requesting that they freeze their application for 12 to 18 months, while they were in the middle of a judicial process?
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A question can have only facts in it. We often fall short of that but this “given” has not been established as a fact by Dr Russel Norman. Also, in stating that allegation he is actually casting a slur on a Minister who is not here to take offence, so in his absence I certainly take offence.
It is a very interesting point that the honourable member raises: that supplementary questions should not contain allegations, and certainly not contain allegations of, perhaps, impropriety. They are not meant to contain statements of assumed fact, anyhow; they are meant to ask questions. I think the best way to handle this is to invite Dr Russel Norman to rephrase his question in a way that is more consistent with the Standing Orders.
Was it appropriate for Minister David Carter at a function on 3 September 2009 to approach the people who applied for a water conservation order, requesting that they freeze their application for 12 to 18 months, while they were in the middle of a judicial process for the water conservation order?
I am not sure that that realistically altered the question that the member asked. I would have thought he could word a question instead of making a statement that suggests that the Minister may have done something the member considers to be inappropriate. Maybe he could phrase it as a question.
The question is whether it is appropriate. The Prime Minister is responsible for his Ministers, so I am asking—
I will just point out my concern. My concern is that the member is alleging that the Minister did what the member is saying he did, and the House has no validation of that. We do not know whether the Minister, in fact, did what the member is alleging. The problem with the question is that the member is implying that if the Minister did, in fact, do that, then it may not have been appropriate. It may be possible to phrase it in a way that asks a question rather than makes a statement that the Minister did something, when the Minister may or may not have done that. The House has no way of validating that supplementary question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It may help the member to phrase the question something like: “Would it be appropriate if a Minister did”. In that way he could get there.
It may assist the House if I table a file note from one of those present when the Minister allegedly approached the applicants for the water conservation order and asked them to hold their application for 12 to 18 months. I seek leave to table that.
Leave is sought to table a document. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think at that point, when authentication has been offered, and declined by Government members, it becomes almost impossible to ask questions and have them ruled out for lack of authentication.
I hear what the member is saying. I invite the member to ask his question, because maybe I am being excessively sensitive about the issue.
Was it appropriate for David Carter to allegedly approach the people who applied for the water conservation order at a function on 3 September 2009, requesting that they freeze their application for 12 to 18 months, while they were in the middle of a judicial process to apply for a water conservation order?
I am not going to offer a view on wild and unproven allegations from the member, but I point out that water conservation orders are a matter for the Minister for the Environment, and that is not Mr Carter.
In light of David Carter’s failure to declare his conflict of interest, and the fact that he inappropriately intervened—
Hon Simon PowerI can anticipate the member’s point of order. The member must not preface his question with another statement, because in answering a question the Prime Minister has already explained that in his view there is no conflict of interest involved in this matter. The member should not start his question “In light of failure to declare a conflict of interest”. I invite the member to rephrase his question.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that we are trying to work our way through some complex wording, but you will recall that yesterday a member from this side of the House had three opportunities to get a question right and at the point of a third opportunity, when you were still not happy with the wording, you moved on. I ask you to consider a similar set of circumstances that have now occurred in this question.
I do not need to hear—[ Interruption] I am considering a point of order. The Government backbenchers are testing my patience, probably for the first time, today, and I suggest they do not do it any further. The difference on this occasion is that it is not all over one question; it is over a further supplementary question. Therefore, it is a different situation from yesterday. I call Dr Russel Norman—please without the preface.
Is the Prime Minister of the view that the Minister of Agriculture is meeting his high standards of ministerial behaviour when he inappropriately intervened in a water conservation order process and approached the applicants?
By my count it is two on this supplementary question—[ Interruption] I am considering a point of order.
I do not need to hear from the member. He must not allege that the Minister behaved inappropriately. The Standing Orders are very clear on that. The member can ask his question without making that allegation, and this is the last occasion on which I invite him to ask his question.
If the Prime Minister discovers, when looking at the documents that I have been unable to table in the House, that it is the case that Minister Carter asked the applicants not to proceed with the water conservation order, does he believe that it meets the high standards he requires of his Ministers?
Once again, I am not going to answer hypothetical questions on unproven situations. All I can tell the member is that one thing I know about David Carter is he manages his superannuation fund better than the Green Party does.
I am not sure what members had for lunch, but I ask for a little respect as I have called Brendon Burns on this occasion for a supplementary question.
Brendon BurnsDoes he agree with comments from Nick Smith, reported today in the Timaru Herald, that part of his consideration in sacking Environment Canterbury was he does not trust Canterbury voters to make what he considers the right decision in October’s local body elections?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, we have the exact same problem that we had with Dr Russel Norman. I do not believe that the facts of that supplementary question are true.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I think we had an assurance from the member that he was quoting from a newspaper. Mr Speaker, you have already said we are not allowed to table things in order to authenticate.
I have heard the member. I just remind members what the substantive question is: “Does the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill fulfil his intention to ‘remove particular regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury’?”. I am not sure what that has to do with the supplementary question. It is a long bow to then specifically go to the issue of claiming the sacking of the board. I invite the member to relate his question more directly to that substantive question.
I will completely rephrase the question. Is the Prime Minister aware, in stating he expects to see water storage schemes identified in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy built next year, that the strategy’s first order of priority is the environment and that it wants a phase of restoring water quality before new projects are built?
I can say that the aim of the moves yesterday was to make sure we get an operative regional water plan in Canterbury. That is something that has not been the case for 20 years. Clearly it will be a matter for those commissioners to balance both the needs of the environment and the needs of the economy in the local region. All I can say is that the moves from the Government yesterday have the overwhelming support of all of Canterbury’s district mayors, and I think that represents, as the Otago Daily Times stated, that they have had enough of a dysfunctional Environment Canterbury.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specifically about whether the Prime Minister was aware of what was in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. He has not addressed that question.
I think that is being pretty tough. I think the Prime Minister gave a reasonable answer to that question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. Mr Speaker, this might be something you would want to take under consideration. We have hit today—I think, twice—a point where a ruling on which you have been very strict, and one which I have supported, has come up against the ability of Opposition members to ask supplementary questions. Twice, members have given assurances in their supplementary questions that they are quoting from reports. Mr Hide, I think, went as far as to say that he did not believe the member for Christchurch Central. In the past, it has always been a rule of the House that a member’s word is taken. Mr Speaker, I ask you to think about that in the future, when you are interpreting whether something is properly authenticated.
I will take the member’s point of order seriously, because it is an important issue. With supplementary questions, they are always accepted; there is no means of authenticating them. That is why members have to be a little careful, though, in asking supplementary questions—to make sure they do not make unreasonable allegations. But I will hear the Prime Minister on the issue.
I think it would be useful if members who claimed to have quotes were to bring down to the House the newspaper article they were quoting from, and read it out directly. We have found that on recent occasions the Leader of the Opposition has done exactly that—that is, not reading from a document, and actually the statements have not been correct. So reading them out would be quite useful.
Hon Annette KingI am on my feet, I say to the honourable deputy leader of the Labour Party. I will not get into a debate on this matter now. The reason why the issue arose today was there was an implication, which a member took offence at, that another member might have acted improperly. That is where we have to be very careful. There are ways of asking questions, and I think we finally got to the point where the member was able to ask the questions he wanted to ask in a way that did meet the Standing Orders. But it is not often we come up in quite such a sharp way against the requirement of the Standing Orders not to make allegations in questions that can cause offence, etc. I think the points have been well made, but we will not be able to take the issue any further right now.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask for your consideration of a slightly separate point from Mr Mallard’s. It is simply that, again, there appears to possibly be a conflict with the convention you have adopted, and that is where a member is allegedly quoting from an article, and a point of order is raised like the one Mr Hide raised today in which he said he did not believe that. Mr Speaker, apart from Mr Mallard’s point, you have also ruled that, in your view, we cannot table an article that is recent. That can, in this circumstance, prevent a member from proving that what he is quoting is correct. I invite you, as you consider Mr Mallard’s point, to consider that.
I have made it very clear that I do not intend to take this matter any further. If the point of order debates or relitigates this issue, I will not be happy.
I am not seeking to do that. I am seeking to table a couple of documents, because I am able to provide the authentication that was sought from me on both of the questions I asked—
On this occasion I will allow the member to seek leave to table the document, because of the dispute that has occurred. Normally, I would not, because the Timaru Herald is a readily available newspaper, but on this occasion—
Because I was not sure whether the issue was to do with the first or the second question that I had asked, the second document that I seek leave to table is written question No. 291, from Dr Russel Norman to the Prime Minister, in relation to water storage schemes.
Normally, I would not be putting leave to table the answer to a written question, either, but because of the dispute that has arisen—and only on this occasion—I will put leave for both those documents to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
I seek leave to table a copy of resource consent CRC99.1, in the name of David Cunningham Carter, to take water from the Hurunui River for his Cat Hill farm in the Hurunui District.
Hon Ruth DysonHow can the Prime Minister say that Canterbury does not have a water management strategy, when it is actually contained in the legislation that the House is currently debating under urgency—legislation that also sacks our elected regional councillors, appoints commissioners who will be paid $2,000 a day, and takes away Cantabrians’ right to elect their regional councillors, leaving us with no voice, no vote, and a big rates bill?
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave to table a letter to the previous Government, dated 30 June, in which the chairman of Environment Canterbury specifically notes his meeting with Ruth Dyson and other members of the Labour Cabinet to seek their intervention to try to have water management in Canterbury sorted out—a request that was ignored.