Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11703] 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Civil Defence; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because they are both hard-working and conscientious Ministers. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How can she say her Ministers are conscientious and hard-working when they have both sat on their hands and done nothing to intervene to prevent the imminent lahar from Mount Ruapehu’s crater lake despite warnings from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management several engineering reports and Department of Conservation reports stating that the lahar will be twice the size of the one that killed 151 people at Tangiwai and could now happen as early as November this year? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Contrary to the assertion in the member’s question the advice the Government has from the Director of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is that the set of measures that is now being put in place including the lifting of the State Highway 49 bridge adequately addresses the risk-to-life issue while recognising of course that such risks are not totally predictable and cannot be eliminated in a dynamic environment. A lot has been done. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why did she and the other members of the Cabinet policy committee reject the advice of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management that said that this risk to life “is above that which society would consider acceptable especially given that practical means of reducing the risk by intervening at the crater rim are available” and will she now be accepting responsibility for any loss of life that occurs as the result of the inaction of herself the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Civil Defence? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That advice was given I understand before the decision was made to raise the State Highway 49 bridge. Since that time the Cabinet policy committee has put a great deal of thought and time into working with officials on the issues and the advice we have had from the Director of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is as I have stated—that the range of measures being put in place reduce the risks to an acceptable level. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wonder whether the Prime Minister has contemplated consulting Dr Brash and asking him to speak with his previous Maori affairs spokesperson whose family of course gave the national park to this country without any charge whatsoever in an endeavour to obtain some sort of rapprochement between Tuwharetoa and the Government’s concerns. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I thank the member for his suggestion. I had not considered that course of action because in recent weeks Dr Brash has shown he has not the slightest intention of taking any notice of anything Georgina te Heuheu says. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Did the Minister of Civil Defence give the same advice to her and her Cabinet that he gave to the House yesterday and I quote: “The engineering advice that this Government has accepted says exactly that by interfering now we will make the future possibility of a lahar greater.’’; and in view of the fact that the engineering report says the exact opposite to that why does she continue to protect that Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Cabinet policy committee in its prolonged consideration of this matter in recent weeks looked at a number of intervention options. I want to stress that all that matters to us is that we have in place the best set of preparations we can. Therefore we took advice on whether a trench should be built on whether there should be sluicing on whether there should be siphoning and on whether explosives should be used to trigger a lahar. In the end we were not convinced of the efficacy of any of those measures. I might point out that on the construction of a trench the advice we had was that it would probably make a future lahar bigger and therefore more dangerous. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does she reconcile her enthusiasm for photo opportunities on the 50th anniversary of the Tangiwai disaster and with recent flood victims in the Manawatu with her Government’s refusal to take the common-sense approach recommended by the Ruapehu District Council and by the Manawatu Horizons Regional Council of doing a very small amount of work at the crater rim; and does the Prime Minister put greater weight on cultural and environmental sensitivity than on the views of the local people whose lives and property are at risk by this Government’s inaction? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What the Government has put weight on is properly weighing all the options. I note that at an earlier point the Minister—and I want to pay him credit here—while himself favouring the engineering options said that one could not ignore the issues of the iwi and one could not ignore the fact that the crater was in a national park. I want to assure the member that neither of those two issues would have stood in the way of intervention had we been persuaded that intervention was the right thing to do. We have not been persuaded and we have it on the advice of the Director of Civil Defence and Emergency Management that all reasonable measures that could be put in place have been. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why in the last 4 years have the previous Minister Sandra Lee and the current Minister Chris Carter consistently stated that the issues of environmental and cultural sensitivity were the major reasons for not proceeding with the engineering works but lo and behold after Don Brash’s Orewa speech suddenly the tune changes and there are a lot of other reasons why the Government will not do the necessary engineering works? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have warned members about interjecting while questions are being asked. Every member has the right to ask his or her question in silence and I caution the member concerned. She knows who she is. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat that the uppermost consideration in the Government’s mind is what is the best way of dealing with this dynamic natural environment. What I would say is that we have put in place a lot of measures that have now led the Director of Civil Defence and Emergency Management to back entirely what the Government is doing. I might say that we have acted and file memos in the Department of Conservation show that the previous National Minister Dr Smith kicked the issue off until after the 1999 election. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the full report that was prepared on my instructions as Minister of Conservation in 1999 and that stated it would be at least 5 years before there was any risk and there was ample time to make a considered decision on the lahar. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order in the spirit of Standing Order 361 which deals with the issue of a Minister quoting from a document. I realise the Prime Minister was not quoting directly from the document but as the Minister has said there is now engineering evidence to support the Government’s view and given the great interest in the matter I invite the Government to table this engineering evidence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the official advice that it is now impossible to clear the National Parks Act and Resource Management Act provisions with the lake filling so quickly I wish to seek leave for the Ruapehu Crater Lake Lahar Prevention Works Empowering Bill in my name to be placed at the top of the Order Paper on the next members’ day and for the House to give leave for that bill to be taken through all stages. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What is the procedure if a Cabinet Minister comes into the House and starts quoting information to the House that is then not made available to the House—not allotted to the House in evidence? Do you see my point? The Prime Minister is relying on a piece of information that she has there. We notice that there is a green Cabinet paper in the pile of documents she has in front of her. We saw her pull it out and read from it. Why has it not been tabled? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member should have made a point of order at that time. If the Prime Minister was quoting from an official document then members can ask to have it tabled. That is perfectly in order. The sheaf of notes she used to answer the question do not have to be tabled. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask that the Prime Minister does table the green Cabinet paper that she was reading from during her answer. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am only too happy to table the document because I understand it has already been released to the Opposition under the Official Information Act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the Prime Minister tabling the actual document? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am tabling the minute which is what I read from. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister will table the minute she read from. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think for clarity it was the technical report that was quoted. I tabled the Cabinet minute yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are too many points of order and people do not know the Standing Orders. The Prime Minister was asked as she was quoting from a document whether she would be happy to table that document which she has done. As far as her tabling the rest of the sheaf of notes is concerned that is not within the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What we have just seen is a very good example of a total waste of Parliament’s and taxpayers’ time and money. [ 
Interruption 
] Points of order should be heard in silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct and people will be leaving the Chamber. Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point is simply this. Parliamentary question time is very valuable time. There are other parties in this Parliament that are sincere about getting information out in front of the public—not just constant point-scoring and wasting everybody’s time. That was a very good illustration. I want to know Mr Speaker whether you are prepared to give some sort of ruling as some sort of guidance for the National Party in particular as to how its members might better order their time in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Although the point is an interesting one if I were to rule everything out in that regard I would love it because it would make question time very very simple and very short and I would be able to get my afternoon tea more quickly.