Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3887. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When his office had a “quick look at the matters involved” with regard to the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust whom did they speak to and what documents did they look at to arrive at their conclusion that “we did not find anything that raised concerns to us”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Between my office and the Minister for the Environment’s office a review was undertaken of the documents released to the member under the Official Information Act the funding arrangements and the scope of the work undertaken. From that review we were satisfied that the matter did not warrant further investigation. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why did he and his office not consider that the email from Guy Salmon on 6 September 2011 was a cause for concern given that in that email Mr Salmon sought to pre-empt the outcome of the independent panel’s consideration of the trust’s application to the Community Environment Fund an email that led a ministry official to say that the trust was “pressuring the ministry”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We would reject the assertions that the member has made. I make two points. Firstly the Community Environment Fund funding was actually never used. I am advised that around 15 months passed between the trust initially seeking Community Environment Fund funding and the final decision being made not to provide it. That might be rushed in the Labour Party’s time and thinking but 15 months is not rushed under this Government. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why did he and his office not consider the statement from Guy Salmon in the email of 6 September 2011 to be a concern when that statement reads: “Nick gave me to understand that he was going to establish collaborative processes as a specific priority to be funded in the forthcoming … round; however there was no sign of that on the application form. I worry that Nick is so overloaded that he has not actually been on top of looking after this project.” and does that not sound like the trust believes that it was being considered differently from other projects? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. It sounds like a couple of things: firstly concern that Nick Smith had an awful lot on his plate which he did because he was a very busy Minister at the time; and secondly a genuine view from the Minister that he thought the right way to go was a collaborative approach—that that would be appropriate for that mechanism to be set up—and that possibly Community Environment Fund funding was the right way to actually fund that. I simply make this point: maybe Grant Robertson would like to go and ask Charles Chauvel what Charles Chauvel said— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Order! 
Grant Robertson 
: Why did his office not consider that there may be issues of concern about the treatment of a trust chaired by a National Party MP when a Ministry for the Environment official said in an email dated Monday 29 August 2011 that the registering of the trust on the society’s register was managed in quick time as a result of “a special favour request”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: There is nothing unusual about trying to establish a process to resolve an important issue. This issue was an issue of great concern. It had over 10000 submissions. I simply say to the member: go and ask Charles Chauvel and see what he said at the Environmental Defence Society conference. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he accept that the funding of important and useful collaborative processes for dealing with environmental issues still needs to be subject to the proper processes and transparency? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and that is why the Community Environment Fund in the end was not used to fund the project as the member should know. I simply say to the member go and ask Charles Chauvel what he said at the Environmental Defence Society conference. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he believe on the basis of the investigation of his office that the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust received the same treatment as other applicants for ministry funding particularly in light of the Ministry for the Environment indicating in official documents that it had spent 200 hours of staff time on the trust application between March and October 2011? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The trust did not get funding from the Community Environment Fund. The trust ultimately got funding at the discretion of the Chief Executive of the Ministry for the Environment. There is no question that the Government believed that the collaborative approach was the right way to go. It was estimated to be a tenth of the cost of going through a litigious process. It is also true that the ministry thought that a better way to go was through the court and the Government thought that spending $2.6 million to resolve something that could be approved through a collaborative process was the better way to go. And I simply say to the member go and ask Charles Chauvel what he said. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why does the Prime Minister think that Ministry for the Environment officials raised serious concerns about the funding of the project? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: There were people within the ministry who did not like the collaborative approach and wanted to go to court—they wanted to go to court. They are welcome to their view but we do not listen to every official’s view. And not so long ago I remember being in this House and hearing Helen Clark say she did not get any ideas from officials; she got them from the  
Guardian 
. I say to the member go and ask Charles Chauvel what he said at the Environmental Defence Society conference. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table three documents. The first of those is an email from a Ministry for the Environment official dated Monday 29 August 2011 that says that the societies register application of the trust was processed as a result of a special favour request. 
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. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table an email from Guy Salmon dated Tuesday 6 September 2011 to Jacqui Dean in which he seeks to pre-empt the outcome of the community environment fund process. 
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. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table a time line developed by the Ministry for the Environment on funding of the trust which includes the statement that the funds management team alone estimates that between March and October 2011 it spent an estimated 200 hours working on funding of the trust. 
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.