Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:622;Page:17675] 
6.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does he stand by his statement in his letter to Mr Friend of Outdoor Recreation NZ’s marine committee regarding the proposed Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve that: “It is not possible for any number of submissions in support to create precedence for the future since the statutory path of the Marine Reserves Act 1971 directs me as decision maker to consider my objections received on a marine reserves proposal not submissions in support. I do not base my decision on the number of objections versus submissions in support”; if so why? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is precisely the problem. Now that the member has read it out we can hear that it is not a spelling mistake he is guilty of; he has just got the wrong word. It should be brought to his attention that he is talking about something that is entirely different from what he has expressed in his question. I thought that the Clerk’s Office should have helped him out at the time rather than let him come down to the Chamber and be a smart alec raise silly points of order and show what a silly boy he is. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I draw the House’s attention to the fact that what the member was doing was quoting from a letter from the Minister of Conservation. It was not the member’s quotation but the Minister’s quotation. If there is any error in the quotation it is actually in the quotation itself not in its reporting. I appreciate the point that has been made but I say that the error lies with the original writer not with the drafter of the question. I make one further point Mr Speaker: I was concerned to hear you say at the time the original point of order was raised that you had not seen the question. I was under the impression that all questions were vetted by you before they went on to the Order Paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and on this occasion I made a mistake; I did not read the question carefully enough. I am occasionally known to make mistakes. [ 
Interruption 
] I am tempted to comment but will not. I say that this is a quote from a Minister’s letter. I assume that it is correct because that is the way the question was originally submitted. It stands and the Minister must now give his answer. 
Larry Baldock 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may be better if I seek the leave of the House to table the letter from the Minister which has that exact quote and spelling in it so that the matter is made clear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member seeks leave to table the letter. Is there any objection. There is. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell the member that this had better be a point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: I ask you please not to doubt me Mr Speaker. My point of order is in line with the comments made by the Hon Peter Dunne. The member did not read out correctly either the exact quote of what the Minister said or what is written here on the Order Paper. I draw your attention to the second to last line of the text of the written question which states: “… maker to consider any objections …” The member actually said: “… maker to consider my objections …” and the  
Hansard  
will prove that what I am saying to you right now Mr Speaker is correct. I think that that brings into question the whole validity of the question and the worth of having it read. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If there is a grammatical error in a question that does not invalidate the question. In any case the Minister may answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not a grammatical error that my colleague Ron Mark is raising with you; he is saying that when the member got to his feet he did not read the question out as it appears on the Order Paper. The member just makes one mistake after another. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to ask Mr Baldock one question. Did he read it out correctly? 
Larry Baldock 
: No it seems that I have made a mistake and have misquoted one word in the question. I should have said “to consider any objections” rather than “to consider my objections”. I apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Conservation 
: Yes because the letter went on to state: “The Minister must consider each objection against the criteria set out in section 5 of the Marine Reserves Act.” 
Larry Baldock 
: Why did the Department of Conservation’s community relations manager Warwick Murray in his comments in the  
Rodney Times 
 on Thursday 4 November and Auckland Conservator Rob McCallum in his press release on 9 December and again in his comments on Radio New Zealand on 10 December make such a fuss about how many submissions were in favour compared with how many were against the reserve and does that not reveal the fact that the Minister’s staff do not understand the Act they are meant to implement; so will the Minister therefore call them in for retraining on the finer points of the law and if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member is correct in that the number of submissions in favour or against is not a particularly relevant consideration. We take into account the criteria for judging a marine reserve and I will certainly make sure that the people concerned are aware of that. 
Edwin Perry 
: What did the ministry base its proposal for the Mimiwhangata marine reserve on when neither the local iwi Ngati Wai nor the local communities bordering the proposed reserve were properly consulted? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I believe that in the setting up of any marine reserve it is absolutely essential that local communities are consulted. 
Dave Hereora 
: Are submissions in support of marine reserves considered when decisions are made on reserve applications? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes the Minister can take into account submissions in support of a marine reserve but the Marine Reserves Act spells out that the first task in making a decision on a marine reserve is to consider whether to uphold any objection before considering the overall merits of any application. 
Larry Baldock 
: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the independent review of the marine reserve proposal which he has announced will take place will investigate claims that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand was informed of the department’s intentions earlier than other stakeholders and was asked to drum up submissions in support of the reserve in order to seek to override the substantial objections from recreational users of the area proposed for the reserve and from the residents of Great Barrier Island; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I will give the House an assurance that the independent review will cover the process very thoroughly and the Minister will look at that very carefully. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How will the axing of 13 Department of Conservation staff half of them scientists and some of them working on marine issues progress the work to identify and protect key marine biodiversity in marine reserves? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That is an operational matter. The Department of Conservation has had a substantial increase in its budget over the years but like all other departments it has to live within the confines of its budget. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister aware that NgatiRehuahapu of Ngati Wai objects to the director-general’s application for the Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve as do the Auckland City Council adjoining landowners the Recreational Fishing Council Option4 and the Big Game Fishing Council representing hundreds of thousands of hard-working taxpaying New Zealanders—or will this be just another case of a sham process of pretending to hear submissions while the department does what it wants regardless? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No it is not a sham process at all. The legislation passed by this House which I am sure that member supports sets out very clearly the criteria for objections and if one objection can be upheld to show that the objector has suffered undue adverse effects—just one objector—then the marine reserve proposal stops in its tracks. I am sure the member would see that as a very fair process. 
Larry Baldock 
: Will the Minister offer an apology to long-time residents and landowners like the Mabeys for the damage done to their reputations by the unethical scheming of Department of Conservation staff who tried to persuade them to support the marine reserve by telling them that they would be able to continue to fish in the reserve adjacent to their land and who published that in the draft proposal without the knowledge of the Mabeys giving the appearance to other residents that the Mabeys had sold out when that was clearly not the case since they had refused to accept rights others would not have and still remain opposed to the marine reserve to this day; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I reject entirely that Department of Conservation staff have acted unethically. Department of Conservation staff have obviously been in discussion with the Mabeys. They have made them an offer which they have rejected and they are entitled to do exactly that. 
Larry Baldock 
: I seek leave to table a few documents. The first is the press release in the  
Rodney Times  
by Department of Conservation staff. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is. 
Larry Baldock 
: I seek leave to table the transcript of the Radio New Zealand interview with the conservator. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Larry Baldock 
: I also seek leave to table the press release regarding the majority of submitters being in favour of the Department of Conservation proposal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is.