Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9044] 
8. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Assuming that the member and I agree on what “recent” means yes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister stand by his comments yesterday in the 
 Press 
 that the decision to change the boundaries of the Oteake Conservation Park was not made at the behest of L and M Mining? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. What I can tell the member is that L and M Mining I discovered made a submission on a discussion document published by the previous Government’s Minister of Conservation in which it did point out that it had an interest in that area. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can he confirm to the House that he was advised by his department that: “The successful development of the Hawkdun project is contingent on L and M gaining access to the entire lignite resource.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I had a discussion on this matter with the Minister of Conservation on 12 March 2009. I received a number of documents on that day. They were departmental documents; they were not representations from L and M Mining to me. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked the Minister about advice he had received from his department not about other representations and it asked nothing about his meeting with the Minister of Conservation. If it is appropriate to put the question again I will but I would ask that the question be addressed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I point out that the member’s question on the order sheet is incredibly general. For members to set down a very general question and then to expect the Minister to be able to answer very detailed questions about a particular application in my view goes beyond the bounds of what is good order in the House. 
Charles Chauvel 
: The Minister was able to begin his answer with a very specific reference to a date on which he had a meeting with another Minister. I think he is well prepared to answer the questions. As I said this was a specific question about advice received from the department. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith is a very fair point: that where members put down very broad primary questions it is then very difficult to expect a Minister to have the information to give a precise answer to supplementary questions that are much more specific. However the question that the member asked did not seem to be one that required specific technical information; it seemed that he was asking whether the Minister had received advice. It is possible that the Minister cannot recollect that but because of the concern about the fact that the Minister seemed to refer to discussion with another Minister rather than advice from officials the easiest way for me to sort this out is to allow the member to repeat his question. I would like it to be exactly the same question unchanged. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Was the Minister advised by his department that: “The successful development of the Hawkdun project is contingent on L and M gaining access to the entire lignite resource.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will give the same answer that I gave before. On 12 March I met with the Minister of Conservation to discuss that matter. I received on that day—or thereabouts; my office probably received them before I got them—a number of official documents relating to this matter. That could well have been some of the advice. I do not have a memory of that; I have a memory of the meeting. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister recall receiving any advice that was prefaced with the words: “L and M has advised” and does he stand by his statement: “We had no representation from L & M Mining. I want to make that very very clear.” 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My comment was made in relation to an allegation that L and M Mining had lobbied me directly. It did not. The company made a representation through the proper process which was set up by the previous Government’s Minister of Conservation. The allegation is made in a website blog which of course is run out of the third floor of Parliament Buildings by the Labour Party and is paid for by the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. I have nothing to hide. I was not lobbied by the mining company. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was quite a confined one about whether the Minister recalled receiving a specific piece of advice. I think the answer has gone well wide of the mark. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the answer went well wide of the mark but in fairness I say to Charles Chauvel on this occasion he asked for very specific information on a primary question that asked: “Does he stand by all his recent statements?”. I think it would be unreasonable to expect any Minister to be able to recollect some of the information that the member was seeking given that specific primary question. I think in fairness if a member wants to have that kind of specificity addressed in a supplementary question the primary question needs to be somewhat more specific than this one. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister recall receiving the advice to which I have alluded in my previous questions in a briefing dated 16 December 2008 and was this before the meeting that he requested with the Minister of Conservation to discuss the rezoning of the Oteake Conservation Park? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not recall the exact timings of that at the present time. I can say to the member though that I have made no secret of the fact that I think New Zealand should make more of its mineral resources. I think the lignite deposits in Southland offer this country an extraordinary opportunity. I did lobby the Minister of Conservation to leave out 200 of the 70000 hectares that have gone into that conservation park. I did that because I think it is good for this country and I have nothing to hide. 
Hon Member 
: We don’t operate like you Charles. 
Charles Chauvel 
: And thank goodness for that Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not blame the member for saying that when one gets an interjection like that. It would be helpful not to interject quite so loudly. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Did the Minister meet with the Minister of Conservation in February 2009 after receiving the advice referred to in the previous questions to discuss the impact of the proposal to change the park boundaries on the Hawkdun lignite deposit; and was the area that was crucial for the Hawkdun project in fact the area that was excluded from the boundaries of the park when those new boundaries were announced by Tim Groser in April 2009? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No and yes. 
Hon Tim Groser 
: Does the Minister recall during the many conversations the two of us had as Ministers of the day that the burden of the advice we received was as follows: that there was almost no chance of this project being commercially viable and going ahead and that there were far more prospective areas that were more likely to go ahead but that the underlying issue was whether we are going to lock away for future generations the opportunity to revisit this or instead have a park of 64800 hectares rather than of 65000 hectares? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Was the Minister advised of any other commercial parties interested in the Hawkdun deposit; if not does he stand by his comments that the decision to change the boundaries of the Oteake Conservation Park was not made at the behest of L and M Mining? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I was not lobbied by any mining company with regard to that 200 hectare block. I was however lobbied by the Department of Conservation to drop my suggestion that it should be left out on the basis that if we were to realign the boundary the toilet block would be on the wrong side of the road. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon Annette King 
: You would have had to walk too far Gerry! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s own colleague has called a point of order. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Bearing in mind the previous comments about the breadth of the questions and answers I did ask very specifically whether the Minister was aware of any other commercial interests other than those of L and M Mining in the Hawkdun lignite deposit. I ask that the Minister address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to be reasonable and to put himself in the place of the Minister. If the Minister tried to answer that question and without having any preparation for the specific issue got it wrong he would be in some difficulty. I think it is only fair that where a member wants to be given that kind of specificity in response to a question the primary question should be somewhat clearer than this one is because it is unreasonable to expect Ministers to have that kind of information at their fingertips. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that for two reasons. One is that I would have thought that that is within the purview of the Minister who is answering the question. If he feels that he does not have that information as you have rightly pointed out he can say he does not have it and sit down. Mr Brownlee has given quite a bit of information as the questions have flowed. Second I submit to you that the history of this place when both parties were on the reverse sides of the Chamber of their current ones is that there has been a long-standing tradition that members of Parliament ask very general questions and that has never really been appealed against until this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And there has also been— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Speaking to the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —I am on my feet—a longstanding practice unless the member’s memory is very short that Ministers have got away without answering questions at all. On this occasion a question was asked and the Minister answered it. The member asking the question was not happy with the answer and sought my assistance. I have declined to give further assistance because of the nature of the question asked and the nature of the primary question. That is the end of the matter. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a document and I want to be able to read the entire description of the document. It is longer than normal because it establishes the provenance of the advice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As long as the member is not seeking to read the entire document when describing it. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table page 4 of a briefing paper to the Minister from his department dated 16 December 2008 paragraph 16 of which begins “L and M has advised … ” and paragraph 17 of which advises that “The successful development of the Hawkdun project”—[ 
Interruption 
] This is a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The reason why there is difficulty is that member is trying to go beyond simply describing the document. The document is a briefing document to the Minister. Leave is sought to table that document on these matters. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to give a clarification because we do not want to block the tabling of documents like that. It was a departmental document not lobbying from a mining company. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is now getting very untidy. I ask the member to resume his seat for the moment. Leave was sought to table a document and the member obtained it. The description of the document was that it was part of a briefing document to the Minister. On that basis the House accepted it. If it is anything other than a briefing document from the Minister’s department I ask the member to just clarify that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: That is quite right and for the Minister’s benefit— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No all I asked the member to do was to just clarify that it was a document from the Minister’s department.