English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5680] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Why did her office on Monday ask the Ministry of Culture and Heritage to forward to her the official files relating to changes to the definition of historic heritage in the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 So that I could be fully informed should there be follow-up from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article on Monday morning. Unfortunately in the event I was not. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now the Prime Minister has given an explanation for her statements in the House is she willing to apologise to the listeners to Newstalk ZB to whom she said: “People don’t recall having made conscious decisions to include them” and to the readers of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 to whom she said as reported that “the offending clauses slipped into the bill unnoticed”; and if she will not apologise to those New Zealanders why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No because I had no recollection of it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Prime Minister and the Clerk’s Office had the offending statements put before both the office and her yesterday so how can the Prime Minister get up today and say she has no recollection of them if not for the reason that she has utter contempt for you and everybody else in this House and in this country? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debatable issue. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Why did the Government agree to the amendment to remove the phrases from the definition of historic heritage in the Resource Management Bill Amendment Bill (No 2)? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the Minister for the Environment stated on 8 May United Future had raised some reservations about the terms with her. Upon further consideration and consultation with colleagues she considered that removal of the words was sensible because they created uncertainty and the issues concerned were covered by other more understood terms in the definition. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister accept that when she gave her answer yesterday—while she had the primary bill in front of her—the answer could not have been correct and she could not have been telling the truth; and more important does she accept that the explanation relating to United Future that she has just given could not have been the truth either because at the time of the approval of the bill those offending words were in it in the introduction; so if the Prime Minister accepts that she was not telling the truth andshe is prepared to admit that is it because she did not read the bill or was she deliberately not telling the truth? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise for suggesting that someone deliberately did not tell the truth. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Unconsciously did not tell the truth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. First of all the member will withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will withdraw and apologise for that and I will amend the last offending phrase. Does she admit as a third proposition that she was unconsciously not telling the truth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My references to the primary bill were to the bill that was introduced in 1999 which came back to the House in 2001 with the changes. Then the reported-back bill of course was re-introduced in March and went through the House yesterday. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Prime Minister recall the statements she made on 23 February 1999 recorded in  
Hansard 
 regarding the then Prime Minister Jenny Shipley’s statement that she had some papers missing with regard to Kevin Roberts and her own statement to the House that that raised very serious issues about the integrity of the Government that the then Prime Minister’s statements were rather Clintonesque and that the Prime Minister had an opportunity to make a ministerial statement to the House on those matters; and given that would she not think—unless she wants to be accused of being hypocritical—that she should make a ministerial statement explaining how the Ministry for Culture and Heritage came to have those documents missing? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Ministry for Culture and Heritage is reviewing what happened—because I did not come to the House fully informed. Having been Prime Minister for 3½ years I have a great deal of sympathy for former Prime Ministers trying to remember everything that happened. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that whenever this Prime Minister gets in trouble she acts as if the Government does not do anything that she does not remember; that she always says she cannot recall it; and she ends up giving an apology that is never sincere? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The bigger offence when asked about this on Monday morning would have been to say that I recalled things I did not recall at all. 
Stephen Franks 
: Now that we know we had to fend off cultural and ancestral landscape provisions inserted at the Prime Minister’s express written request why did she ever want to impose them on property owners and what did she think they meant? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The report that came to my attention late yesterday showed that officials in September 2000 responded to submissions made to the select committee going back to the original bill introduced in 1999 which was reported back in May 2001. Among the submissions were submissions sympathetic to the inclusion such as one for example from the Palmerston North City Council. What the officials did—and I accept that they did because I have now seen the document since question time yesterday—was ask me to approve the contents of the draft report prepared between the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and the Ministry for the Environment as their response to the submissions. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us at what time officials presented the information to her yesterday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: When I got into a car after a function at 6.15 yesterday I was advised as the Leader of the House had already been advised that this document had come over. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister a much simpler question: having had access to the bill and seeing therefore that on its introduction her words could not be correct why did she take 4½ hours to come down to the House and explain herself when it is demonstrably palpably true— 
Hon Annette King 
: Didn’t you listen? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is in the bill junior. [ 
Interruption 
] Why are there all these interruptions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister does not have a question; she will leave the Chamber. I have asked the member who interjected during question time to leave the Chamber. 
Hon Annette King withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the offending words are in the bill and therefore her comments against that bill could not be correct why did she not come down immediately someone read the bill out to her explain that she was wrong and correct it in the House? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It became clear in the course of question time yesterday that the member and I were speaking at cross-purposes. I was referring to a bill introduced in 1999; he was referring to the reported-back bill that was reintroduced. Can I remind him that I said in answer: “The bill was introduced in 1999. It was a bill that came back to the House after changes had been made to it in the select committee. The form that the select committee had reported it back in was the bill that was withdrawn and reintroduced ... ”. So that point was covered. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is she prepared to table the full information she received from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage at her request to see whether Opposition MPs can find the references to the word changes to the definition of heritage in the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) which was the specific information that her department sought from that ministry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: When I am satisfied that I do have the full file I will be making it available to members pursuant to the Act as some have already asked for. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has made a personal explanation in respect of saying that these provisions were added by the select committee when they were in fact added by the Minister. But the Minister for the Environment both in a public statement and in a parliamentary statement has also said these matters were made by the select committee and I believe that that Minister should make a personal explanation on misleading the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is just a debating matter.