9. Question No. 9—ConservationLAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 9—Conservation9. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he agree that every Government no matter their politics has a duty of care on behalf of all New Zealanders in the conservation of Te Taiao?Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: Thank you Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Conservation I expect that every New Zealander including every member of this House feels an innate desire to protect our conservation values in this country and as the Minister of Conservation I have a statutory responsibility to do so that I am determined to uphold.Lan Pham: Does he think that his duty of care is being upheld when he decided to cut the successful Jobs for Nature programme which has brought immeasurable benefits to te taiao; enabled iwi hapū and communities to regenerate nature; and employed thousands of people?Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister the Jobs for Nature programme included work streams that were always time limited. That was the case under the previous Government under which they were established; that remains the case now and unallocated funding being discontinued is not inconsistent with that.Lan Pham: Is he concerned that his duty of care to protect biodiversity and taonga species is threatened by the Minister for the Environment's decision to cut over $600 million from Vote Environment gut her own ministry and scrap 500 staff roles?Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation I obviously reject the premise and the characterisation of that question. My fellow Ministers and I are obviously determined to achieve conservation and other Government priorities. Part of that is reprioritising within the portfolios to ensure that the spending available—noting that no Government has ever had an unlimited budget in these matters—is deployed to maximum effect by concentrating on the areas with which we can make most difference to the conservation estate.Lan Pham: Is he concerned that his duty of care to protect marine species is threatened by the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries' proposal to disregard environmental risks and community voice through a blanket extension of every single marine farm in the country for 20 years?Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation obviously I reject the characterisation of the actions and the statements and the responsibilities as executed faithfully by that ministerial colleague.Lan Pham: Does he think his duty of care is threatened by the Government's decision to override core environmental laws our proud history of democratic process and our founding document of Te Tiriti through the Fast-track Approvals Bill all for the sake of industry profit?Hon CHRIS PENK: Again on behalf of the Minister of Conservation and again those characterisations are not even close to being accurate. In relation to the democratic participation element just to pick on that aspect of the question it's the case that the relevant select committee has been engaged in hearing submissions on that very point which rather undermines the member's point. It's precisely because we have that ability for democratic participation that select committee will form a view on the bill as a whole including any amendments that it might propose and the Government will consider those in due course.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker you'll have observed in the last question and the one before that that this member's habit is to get up and make a lot of comments that she cannot authenticate and in this House you're required to be able to authenticate to the House or the Speaker if you're challenged. Those statements about the four changes were not true then and they're not true in the future.SPEAKER: Well that would be an interesting point of order if it were in line with the Standing Orders. Supplementary questions merely have to follow on from answers given to a primary question. I listened to that very very carefully. Sometimes we let stuff go because of the flow of the House but I don't believe those questions were as far out of order as was being suggested.Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.SPEAKER: Is there a further point?Ricardo Menéndez March: It's a point of order yeah. If I heard correctly—and I just wanted to check because I was trying to pay attention—did I just hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters imply that my colleague was lying by claiming that—SPEAKER: No no you didn't hear that. You heard him questioning the relativity of the question to the Standing Orders which is quite reasonable. I call Lan Pham.Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker—.SPEAKER: This better be good. Is it new?Hon David Seymour: Supplementary yes. Is it—SPEAKER: Well hang on I've called Lan Pham.Hon David Seymour: Well it better be good then.SPEAKER: Just everyone go back to being quiet and listening to a question.Lan Pham: Thank you Mr Speaker. What in his department's environmental reporting and monitoring has he seen to support the Minister for the Environment's claim that we consider the balance [has] swung too far towards environmental protection"?Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation fellow Ministers and I are determined to ensure that we achieve real-world outcomes that are better for the environment but also better for the economy. This need not be a false choice. We can actually improve the environment in a way that reflects good sustainable development and management principles and that's what we determine to continue to do.Hon David Seymour: Is it the Minister's view that wealthy countries are able to put more resource into conservation and his duty of care to the planet and the people of this country will be so much better discharged with sound economic management under this Government?Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation that is indeed the evidence that we see worldwide. Countries that can afford to expend their resources in terms of protecting the environment invariably are able to do so in a way that countries that are poorer simply cannot and that feeds into the bigger-picture work of the Government of rebuilding the economy so that we have resources to do precisely this kind of thing."