Turei Metiria: Personal Explanations — Mining in Conservation Areas—Clarification of Quotation 
Turei Metiria: Personal Explanations — Mining in Conservation Areas—Clarification of Quotation 
[Volume:657;Page:6620] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member inform the House what it is about. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: It concerns a quote yesterday from a press release of mine and I wish to clarify any misunderstanding about the quote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation about that matter. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The honourable member may proceed. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Yesterday the Minister of Energy and Resources in answer to a supplementary question— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It should be a personal statement about the member not about other members. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister makes a very good point. I remind the honourable member that a personal explanation must be about a personal matter. It should not start by talking about someone else; it should start by talking about the member. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is of course my first personal statement to the House and I would seek some guidance. It is difficult to make the personal clarification if the circumstances in which that clarification has to be made are not set out first. So I would seek your indulgence given that this is my first opportunity to make such a statement to at least set the frame in which the personal clarification has to be made. Otherwise it would make no sense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think it would be reasonable for the honourable member to set out the matter that caused her concern without necessarily naming another member of the House. It is not about another member of the House; it is the issue that the member is making the personal explanation about. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Certainly. Yesterday in answer to a supplementary question a Minister quoted from a press release of mine and I quote from the supplementary answer: “I have seen a report in the form of a press release in support of that goal from a very surprising source. In 2006 the person concerned”—that is me—“issued a press release about the requirement for Solid Energy to move 250 Augustus snails to make way for the expansion of Solid Energy’s Stockton mine. That person said ‘This case clearly shows that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species in such a way that all parties are happy’ ”. That was the content of the quote. 
That comment and that quote were taken out of context. I did not refer in that quote to the removal of  
Powelliphanta augustus 
 by Solid Energy at its Stockton mine. In fact my reference was to Mount Burnett some 100 kilometres from the Stockton mine. In the Mount Burnett case I was referring to the then Minister of Conservation who had prevented an area of  
Powelliphanta 
 habitat from being mined against the wishes of the mining company. I used this as an example to contrast with that Minister’s argument that in the Mount Augustus case removing the species to allow mining was “the only possible decision”. I simply wish to ensure that members have a correct understanding of my statement in relation to the impact of mining on conservation land and the protection of endangered species.