Hague Kevin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hague Kevin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:676;Page:21407] 
5. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does she have confidence in her Department’s management of the conservation values at risk from the application by Bathurst Resources to mine the Denniston Plateau? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes. The department is currently assessing the applications of Buller Coal previously under Bathurst Resources and will take into account the impact on conservation values in any future decisions. 
Kevin Hague 
: Why did the Department of Conservation play no part at all in advocating for or even providing information about the conservation values of the Denniston Plateau in the resource consent hearings? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The department did submit on some matters but did not engage further as it considered the environmental issues it is concerned about can best be managed through the access arrangement and concession processes and provisions. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does the Minister agree with the resource consent commissioners when they said “it is abundantly clear that large scale mining is poised to invade the entire Denniston Plateau coal reserves which if unchecked will totally destroy the ecosystems which are present.” and does she not believe it is essential that the access agreement that is being applied for is publicly notified? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: In relation to the public notification I can advise that if the department intends to grant the Denniston concession application then public submissions will be invited and the public can be heard again should it reach that stage. 
Kevin Hague 
: Is the Minister concerned that the departmental employee who was leading the work on preparing and implementing the department’s strategy in relation to this application has now been employed by Bathurst Resources? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am aware that a Department of Conservation employee has accepted a job with Bathurst Resources. He had no role in processing the applications and was never a decision maker. He also acted entirely appropriately and alerted management to his change of employment to ensure that any conflict of interest could be avoided. 
Kevin Hague 
: Will the Minister instruct the department to audit the decisions and actions taken in the development of its position on the Bathurst Resources application to ensure that there has been no conflict of interest—something that the department has refused to do? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have no reason to instruct the department or arrange such an audit. 
Kevin Hague 
: Will the Minister instruct the department to restart the process of developing its approach to defending conservation values on the Denniston Plateau so that Bathurst Resources does not know the entire strategy—something again that the department has refused to do? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I do not believe that that is necessary. 
Kevin Hague 
: How many more gamekeepers should the public expect to become poachers now that they are losing their jobs as a result of her Government’s savage cuts to funding for conservation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I do not accept any of the premises of that question. 
Kevin Hague 
: I seek leave to table the decision of the commissioners appointed by the West Coast Regional Council and Buller District Council dated 26 August 2011 in respect of this application. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Can she give an assurance that the restructuring at the Department of Conservation will enable staff to continue to properly monitor the other 82 mine licences on conservation land on the West Coast—something they do take very seriously in order to protect the environment and we should applaud them for that—while enabling jobs to continue in the region? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am assured that the department can continue to deliver on such work. Can I say I agree with the member when he says we have to be realistic about the way we get to a new cleaner greener economy and it is through the smart wise use of high-quality hydrocarbons—a very good quote I say to Mr O’Connor. For the Green Party to oppose every mine is just ridiculous. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has the Minister received reports of Labour MP Maryan Street saying Labour is opposed to this mine proceeding whereas Damien O’Connor has said Labour supports this mine proceeding; if so do those reports clarify just what that Opposition party’s position is? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for any of those matters. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being considered. I will hear the Hon Simon Power. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Unless I heard my colleague incorrectly he asked whether the Minister had seen any reports that indicated two members’ views on the same issue. She does have responsibility for reports that she may or may not have seen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Although I acknowledge that the question is clearly constructed to get round the fact that the Minister does not have responsibility for any Opposition views what troubles me is that it is such an obvious attempt to create for a Minister a responsibility that the Minister definitely does not have. If there was substance in the reports that the Minister was responsible for then it would be reasonable to allow that question but I do not think I should allow it. It takes the artificial construction of questions to an unreasonable extreme and I think the Hon Rick Barker has a valid point. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That being your ruling in respect of that question I just ask you not to be too hasty here and to give a bit of thought to the construction of a question to a Minister that asks whether the Minister has seen any reports in respect of a particular issue. You might say as you did in your ruling that this is at the margin of ministerial responsibility and Opposition politics if you like. But in the end a Minister’s responsibility to say whether he or she has seen those reports has been a legitimate way of putting questions to Ministers—for the Opposition for that matter as well—in the time I have been in the House. I just ask you to make sure that we do not now find ourselves in a situation where more broadly that becomes an issue for the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I may find myself losing leave as a result of this but I concur with the view of the acting Acting Leader of the House or whatever his current position is. I think we can get too narrow here. There is a long-term tradition of being able to cause trouble but it is part of the thing in this House that you cannot take the politics out of it. I think you might be trying to do that. I also think it would be just as in order to ask the Minister whether she has seen any reports on the ACT Party’s proposal to use Department of Conservation land for growing Don Brash’s dope on or something similar. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I have heard sufficient and I appreciate the contributions of both the Acting Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House. This is an important issue in that we do not want to narrow the scope for questioning Ministers. My trouble with this question is that it was so blatantly constructed to ask the Minister about Opposition policy which is not the Minister’s responsibility. That is why I have said on this occasion I believe it really stretches the Standing Orders too far. But I do not intend to make it out of order to ask Ministers about reports; it is just that sometimes members get away with it by not specifying the reports. One of the dilemmas with this question is that the member who asked the question was very specific about the reports he wanted the Minister to comment on and that they were clearly to do with Opposition policy. I believe that just takes it too far. I do not want to see us lose the ability to question Ministers through trying to take it too far and that is why I have ruled the question out. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you might furnish the House with a written indication of how you are going to proceed with these things or how you think they should be proceeded with from this point. I note that Charles Chauvel’s questioning today and many of the other questions that have been asked today referred to Opposition policies and asked Ministers to comment on those policies. That was very evident today in Charles Chauvel’s questioning so I think to shut this question down when it might be easily answered—the answer might be something that you shut down but the question itself should be regarded as perfectly reasonable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe I have dealt with this matter. In the case the member is referring to the Attorney-General had clear responsibility for the issue relating to the supposed report that Charles Chauvel was referring to. In this case I do not think that the Hon Kate Wilkinson would claim she has any responsibility whatsoever for what the Hon Maryan Street might have said about an issue. And that is the difference. I think we just have to be careful that by taking this approach too far we do not spoil it. I think it is important to be able to question Ministers through referring to reports as the Acting Leader of the House has emphasised today and as has been supported by the shadow Leader of the House. I think it is important though that we do not destroy that ability through taking it to a ridiculous point. On this occasion the Minister clearly has no responsibility whatsoever for the issues contained in any report about what an Opposition member might have said.