Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19743] 
9.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: What recent progress has been made to improve environmental decision-making? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 A series of training workshops have attracted over 500 people involved in resource management decision-making from almost every council in New Zealand. The workshops provide the skills practitioners need to run fair and effective resource consent and planning hearings. 
David Parker 
: What has the response been to these workshops? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There has been overwhelmingly positive feedback. One attendee said: “This is possibly the best training work course I have attended in 40 years in business.” These workshops form the basis for the Government’s proposals to require mandatory certification and training of Resource Management Act decision makers. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by her Government’s statements about the most significant change proposed in the Resource Management Act reform bill being the removal of  
de novo 
 hearings at the appeal stage and its claims that it will reduce costs and delays when legal experts environmental organisations business groups the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and even the Principal Environment Court Judge all say that the Government is wrong and that this change will significantly increase costs and delays; and will she now drop these foolish changes to that Act? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member made a reference to something that was said in a private session by a judge to the select committee. I see that the chair is nodding. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member be seated so I can clarify. A point of order was raised that a matter had been raised that was before the select committee and the bill has yet to be reported to the House. As the member knows that is not acceptable. Does he wish to talk to that point of order? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My statement in the question was that the Principal Environment Court Judge had said that the Government’s claims that its bill would reduce costs and delays was wrong. There was no reference at all to a meeting of the select committee. I am surprised that the Minister who is not a member of the select committee is aware of the statement made by the Principal Environment Court Judge at that time. The reason for that is very simple. The Minister and the Associate Minister both had a briefing from the judge which was not held in privilege in any way and at that meeting they were advised that their amendments are a nonsense and will not work. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I want to clarify with the Hon Dr Nick Smith whether he was referring to proceedings in the select committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member was not referring to those proceedings in the select committee. Would the Minister therefore answer the question. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The answer to the question is that those are issues that I understand have been raised in submission. I am sure the committee will have some comments on them. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: As the training of councillors on hearings panels has been so successful—and was supported may I say by all the submitters whose submissions are on the public record—will the Minister now consider delaying the massive changes to council procedures envisaged in the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill so that people will have a chance to put their training to good use? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No there will be no consideration to delay. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have quite a serious situation here. The Minister for the Environment as is clear by her disclosure in the House in first raising this point knows what occurred during a private briefing of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Now that can have occurred only as a consequence of a Labour colleague informing her of something that occurred in private and the very crime she accuses me of she has committed herself by being aware of that fact. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I want to make two points on what the member has just said. Firstly of course he has just contradicted what he had assured the House—that there was no private briefing on the matter he referred to in his question. 
Hon Bill English 
: That is not what he said. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is exactly what he said. Secondly the rules of this House have for a long time been quite clear that members of Parliament are allowed to brief other members about what goes on in a select committee. Otherwise no member of this House would ever report back to his or her caucus before a select committee had deliberated. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: The select committee did issue a brief press statement saying that it had heard from the Principal Environment Court Judge in private and that his evidence would be referred to publicly at the time of the committee’s report back to the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a different point of order? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it is an important point with respect to the very issue that has been raised by the Leader of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It would appear that a public statement was made about the attendance. As we know any member of this House can attend a select committee hearing. I am not therefore sure that any breach of any order has occurred in the interchange that has taken place. I have ruled on this matter. I do not wish to have it relitigated. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Leader of the House has raised a point that I think needs clarification. I have always understood that information about a private briefing of a select committee cannot be distributed to other members of the House who are not on that committee. I think it would be helpful if the Speaker were to give a considered ruling because I know that on other occasions when such private briefings have been held the practice has not been what Dr Cullen has pointed out. I simply seek a considered ruling from you on that point so that members can be clear when there is a private briefing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a breach of privilege for one MP to communicate proceedings of a select committee with another member. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister for the Environment believe that the draconian ministerial powers in the proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act whereby she could declare any controversial activity to be a permitted use in all districts and therefore require no Resource Management Act consent at all will improve environmental decision-making; if so why? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Again I understand that these are issues that have been raised in submissions. I am sure that the committee will have some comments on them and I look forward to its report. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have ruled on the matter that was being discussed but I suggest that the ruling while correct is partial. You referred to the fact that it is within the Standing Orders for one member to brief another member about the proceedings of a private hearing. You also referred to the fact that the co-leader of the Greens and chairperson of the committee said that a public statement had been made that a hearing had occurred. But of course neither of those matters deal with the substance of the issue which is that the material that was the substance of the briefing was brought into the public arena by the Minister for the Environment. That is a breach of order. She is not allowed to get up in this House and refer directly to material that was the substance of a private meeting. We are allowed to know that a select committee held a private hearing. We are allowed to be told by other MPs that there was a private hearing and about what was discussed but we are not allowed to raise the matter in the House ahead of the select committee report back. That is a breach of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member believes that a breach of privilege has been committed then I suggest he follow the correct procedure which is to write to the Speaker. 
Hon Bill English 
: On the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that. If the member believes as was the substance of his point that there has been a breach by the Minister then I ask him to follow the correct procedure. He should write to the Speaker and then the matter can be dealt with in the appropriate way. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a new point of order. We now have confusion about how these matters will be handled because in the previous point of order you made a ruling on the matter without referring to people taking a privilege claim. You came to your own decision that whatever had happened was not out of order. As soon as I raised another point which is just another aspect of the same debate—but one you had not dealt with—you then decided that you would not rule and that the issue had to be taken to the Privileges Committee. I am now asking you why you have treated the serious matter of order in the first point of order differently from the way you have treated it in the second. Either this matter should go to the Privileges Committee from the start or you are capable of ruling on both points of order that have been raised—not just on one of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members feel there has been a breach of privilege then I suggest they follow the procedure and write to the Speaker. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek that you give clarification to a ruling you made today because Speakers’ rulings of course can become precedents for the House. It was established in previous exchanges that evidence heard in private at select committees could be communicated to any members of Parliament but that ruling does not appear to be consistent with the Standing Orders. Now by searching through  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and finding that there has in fact been a Speaker’s ruling that deviates from the Standing Order you may be able to advise Parliament but if I quote you Standing Order 218(3) you will see that it is quite clear that: “Evidence heard or received in private is confidential to the committee”—not to members of Parliament—“until it reports to the House.” I would hate for a Speaker’s ruling perhaps given reasonably in haste to be contradictory to the Standing Orders unless previous Speakers’ rulings have already done so. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Standing Order 239(2) for the ruling I made. This is not a breach; it is just disclosure to another. I repeat that if members are concerned there has been a breach I ask them please to follow the correct procedure. I will take no further comment on this ruling.