Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 24 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13606. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to theMinister of Conservation: Does he still stand by his statement on the Department of Conservation submission on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal that “I did not give the Department an indication of what that submission would be”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): Yes and I also back that up with the record of the meeting taken at the time which says that the only action I required from the department was for me to receive a copy of the submission when it was finalised. I also note the comments from the deputy director-general that I referred to in the previous question. She said “He never told me his view.”Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he say to reporters on Tuesday 17 September: “I did not know that this draft document even existed until this morning.” given that he was briefed on that very document on Monday 29 July?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the meeting on 29 July I was told that the department was preparing a submission for when it closed on Friday. That does not give any great knowledge of whatever drafts there might be sitting within the bowels of the department. That is where the members in the Opposition are into faulty conspiracy theories.Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the note from the weekly report explaining exactly what the content of the submission was—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Has this document not been tabled earlier in the day?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The very document that you have asked me to table which was asked for—Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am hearing from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I am hearing from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and if the member Grant Robertson wants to remain for the balance of question time I suggest he remain in his seat and refrain. [Interruption] Order! I will give the Hon Annette King a last chance. I am not prepared to put up with constant bickering from the Labour front bench when I am hearing the Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The document that the Hon Ruth Dyson is seeking to table is the one that I was quoting earlier which you have already asked me to table and I shall do so.Mr SPEAKER: I think it is also a document that was tabled prior to that by Eugenie Sage so it has already been tabled in the House today in question time.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I am talking to the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon Ruth Dyson: Could I speak further to that point of order. I am now challenged on my right to table a document. The Minister in his answers to an earlier question question No. 10 referred specifically to the quote that the department was “evaluating” the project. He then referred to an email from a departmental staff member. Neither of those is in the document I sought to table.Mr SPEAKER: Order! There may be some confusion because there are a lot of documents being tabled at the moment. Earlier today Eugenie Sage sought leave to table the weekly ministerial update that had this item on its agenda. When Ruth Dyson attempted to table a document I took it that she was attempting to table exactly the same. Could the member Ruth Dyson please clarify.Hon Ruth Dyson: My comments were in relation to the comments that Nick Smith made. I asked that he be required to table the documents he referred to in his primary and supplementary—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has already been—[Interruption] Order! That has been clarified and those documents will be tabled. The member then took a point of order seeking to table a document that I believe that Eugenie Sage tabled perhaps 15 minutes earlier. Can we have that clarified please.Hon Ruth Dyson: Is it the same one that I am holding? Yes.Mr SPEAKER: That is right. Well I thank you all for your patience. We got there.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now that we get to it it is more of a general point that when a member seeks leave to table a document clearly you are within your rights to clarify what that document is. What we are seeing increasingly from Government members is that they stand up and take a point of orderin opposition to seeking leave. We have a right to seek leave to table documents without points of order coming from the other side.Mr SPEAKER: Order! This has gone quite far enough. There was clearly some confusion with your honourable member Ruth Dyson attempting to table something that had been tabled earlier. I sought some clarification of that. Nick Smith then took a point of order which actually assisted in clarifying for me that particular point so we have now clarified it. The document that was sought to be tabled by Ruth Dyson has already been tabled and we are not having documents tabled twice. Has the member the Hon Ruth Dyson got further supplementary questions?Hon Ruth Dyson: I have.Mr SPEAKER: Good. Go.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he say in the House on Thursday 19 September: “In early July a 34-page draft submission was prepared by the Department of Conservation. I did not know about that until this week.” given that he was briefed on that very submission on Monday 29 July?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The draft submission the 34-page one the one that referred to the Tukituki River potentially becoming toxic is totally different from the brief note that she has wanted to table—[Interruption] Yes it does. It is totally different. I simply quote again what Doris Johnston said: “He never saw the draft submission that everyone’s been talking about. It was never provided to his office.” That is why I say that I had absolutely no knowledge that that 34-page draft submission had been prepared.Hon Ruth Dyson: When item 5.4 the Tukituki catchment proposal came up at his weekly meeting with Department of Conservation officials on Monday 29 July did he express any opinions at all in relation to theRuataniwha water storage scheme the plan change for water-quality standards or the department’s proposed submission?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am going to quote exactly that document because it is of some controversy: “The department is evaluating the project. Submissions close 2 August. The department’s preliminary view is that there is not sufficient information.” I asked for more information and a copy of the submission. That is exactly what a responsible Minister would do.Hon Ruth Dyson: What was his reaction to being told that a senior Department of Conservation staff member has resigned because of his political interference in the submission process?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have absolutely no knowledge of that. I would make two points. The first is that on—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants an answer she should listen.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: On 1 September as has been the subject of considerable controversy hundreds and hundreds of staff changed position with the restructuring and dozens and dozens of staff were given redundancy on 1 September as part of that restructuring. I have no knowledge that anybody associated with this controversy has resigned. What I further note is that nobody has resigned since this issue went into the public arena last Tuesday.