English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5597] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement on Newstalk ZB that the inclusion of cultural landscapes ancestral landscapes and spiritual resources in the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) were changes inserted by the select committee and that “people didn’t recall having made conscious decisions to put it in”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The statement referred to the Minister for the Environment’s consultation with other Ministers. My understanding is that the changes to the bill were made by the select committee prior to its report back in May 2001. I personally have no recollection of either MPs or officials drawing my attention to them at the time. 
Hon Bill English 
: Were the following people conscious when they took part in a process going back to May 2000: the Labour MPs on the select committee who voted twice for these provisions; the Minister for the Environment who introduced the legislation; the Cabinet committee and the Cabinet Ministers who must have approved the legislation before it came to the House; the officials who have written several reports on exactly this issue over 3 years; and was she conscious being the Minister who was actually in charge of all of that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Minister in charge of the bill of course is the Minister for the Environment. As the House knows the bill that was introduced was the bill as reported back by the select committee. Those changes were made prior to the report back in 2001. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He voted for it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One member is about to stop having any consideration for voting for an hour. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Is the term “cultural landscape” referred to in any other legislation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes it is referred to in the Historic Places Act 1993 passed under a National Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was the Prime Minister telling the truth about the offending words “cultural landscapes” “ancestral landscapes” and “spiritual resources” when she spoke on the ZB radio stations; if she was not was that level of demonstrable untruth of the same level— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot assert that a person was not telling the truth. The member was perfectly entitled to ask the first part of his question but then he started to stray when he got out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will rephrase the question so it is all nice and harmonious. Does the Prime Minister accept now that her statement in respect of those phrases was demonstrably palpably not the truth; and is that level of lack of truth of the same level as United Future describing the bill as the “Thank God for United Future Bill”—the bill that they had the clauses taken out of when on the bill’s introduction those words were in at their behest and approval? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have stated the truth on the matter today in the House and in the Holmes’ interview. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: When the Prime Minister tells the House that she was not conscious of the fact that the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) in the name of Marian Hobbs contained phrases like “cultural landscapes” and “spiritual resources” what does that say to all the business groups that have lobbied her Government about that section of the bill over the last 2 years—were they wasting their time or did she just switch off whenever anyone from business talked to her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The bill is in the name of the Minister for the Environment. The Prime Minister has not been receiving delegations about it. The matter is appropriately being handled by a portfolio Minister—the Minister for the Environment. 
Larry Baldock 
: Was the inclusion of the phrase “ancestral landscapes” by the select committee in the original Resource Management Amendment Bill possibly related to the repeated use of that term by the ministerial advisory committee in its 1998 report on the Historic Heritage Management Review which was initiated and supported by the then Minister of Conservation Dr Nick Smith? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Quite possibly it was but as I was not a member of the select committee I cannot say. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that contrary to statements made by United Future that the Greens had those words inserted it was in fact officials from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage advising the select committee who brought that wording to the select committee and that the committee simply accepted their advice? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no idea. I was not at the select committee and I can find no evidence whatsoever that my permission as Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage was ever sought by officials on that matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of the fact that over 3 years a stack of paper has been through Cabinet committees and Cabinet chaired by her does the Prime Minister believe the statements that “people didn’t recall having made conscious decisions to put it in” and that as reported “the offending provisions somehow slipped into the bill undetected” and how can we possibly believe that those statements represent the truth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This 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 reported it back in was the bill that was withdrawn and reintroduced without it being drawn to my attention that those were offending phrases. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Prime Minister accept the simple proposition—which any school child would be capable of understanding—that her claim that those clauses were changes inserted by the select committee cannot possibly be the truth; if not what is her defence for making that statement? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The truth is that they were inserted by the select committee. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that Maori spiritual and cultural values are already protected by the definition of “historic heritage” which remains in the bill despite the removal of those words? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The definition of “historic heritage” refers to both historic and cultural qualities. I understand that many people would see that that covered matters that those who wanted spirituality included would have wanted covered. In response to the earlier question the bill as reported back in 2001 was the bill that was then introduced without amendment again to expedite the passage of the resource management amendment. 
Rodney Hide 
: On what date did the Prime Minister first become aware that she had Ministers and members of Parliament making far-reaching decisions unconsciously and what did she do about it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Last Tuesday in the House the Minister for the Environment sought my opinion on those words and that is the first time that I personally recall having given the matter any thought whatsoever. I gave the Minister my opinion that if that had not been the Government’s original intention in respect of the bill that went back to 1999 and 2000 then it was no great issue to take the words out. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the House possibly be expected to believe that statement when the Prime Minister herself criticised me quite viciously over the issue of wahi tapu and over subsequent speeches I gave about the inclusion of spiritual values in legislation; had she not heard of any of that until last Tuesday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am delighted to advise that I do not waste a minute on that member’s speeches. 
Stephen Franks 
: When did the Prime Minister’s Cabinet first turn its mind to those provisions for cultural and ancestral landscapes and what does she think Cabinet members thought they were? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member should address his questions to the Minister for the Environment who was in charge of the bill. I have made it plain today that this matter has not been receiving my personal attention. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is presumably still chairing Cabinet conscious or unconscious. That is the question she was asked: whether Cabinet turned its mind to that issue. It does not matter whether a Minister might have done so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was asked and answered. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of veracity I seek to table the original bill as introduced which shows the offending words on page 6 and demonstrates that the Prime Minister was telling porkies. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that bill. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table a letter dated 5 April 2000 from Helen Clark to Marian Hobbs asking that the heritage provisions of the bill be strengthened; a letter from the Minister Marian Hobbs to the select committee making the same request; and a report of the Prime Minister’s own officials giving advice on the inclusion of ancestral landscapes in the definition of historic— 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been drawn to my attention that a member made a comment that was right out of order and against the rules of this House. If that member did so I want that member to stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I said that I thought it was a knockout. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that was not the comment. It was the person who said: “She’s lying.” I want that member to stand withdraw and apologise. Presumably no one said it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is an interesting conclusion for you to reach because presumably if you had heard that comment you would not let it go so lightly. What we noticed over here is that your reaction was straight after Trevor Mallard had indicated to you he thought he had heard that comment. It is not appropriate that the Speaker is in any way influenced by Government Ministers. I think what we are seeing here is a very clear demonstration of that. We would like some assurance that you did hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Occasionally I do not hear remarks and I am pulled up by members of the Opposition or by members of the Government. When I am pulled up about an unparliamentary phrase that I did not hear I do of course have to take notice of that—whoever raises that particular issue. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I also saw the person concerned and heard him make a comment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps in the future it might be better practice that if you do not directly hear what is considered by some other member to be an unparliamentary statement that member should take a point of order and call the whole House’s attention to it so you are not left stranded—as I think you have been in this case—notwithstanding the protestations of the Labour senior whip. If he thinks he heard someone make that comment he should stand up and say who that person was. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I probably should have done it that way. In my opinion Mr English made an unparliamentary comment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member whether he made an unparliamentary comment. 
Hon Bill English 
: I might have done because I was outraged at the Prime Minister’s answer to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I asked whether the member made an unparliamentary comment. If he did so I want him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I am not sure whether I did but I am happy to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said exactly the same thing as the Leader of the Opposition and I withdraw and apologise as well. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I also made a similar remark and I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I should do also. I said: “Of course she’s unconscious. It’s a knockout.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not out of order.