Carter David: Personal Explanations — Canterbury Water Management—Minister of Agriculture’s Involvement 
Carter David: Personal Explanations — Canterbury Water Management—Minister of Agriculture’s Involvement 
[Volume:662;Page:10237] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House under Standing Order 349 to make a personal explanation with regard to a number of claims made in this House about my involvement in Canterbury water issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: On 31 March and 1 April certain incorrect claims were made in this House in relation to Canterbury water issues. This is the earliest opportunity I have had to address these allegations. 
Firstly it was claimed that I stood to benefit financially if the proposed Hurunui irrigation project went ahead. This claim is untrue. There is an existing historical consent to irrigate approximately 40 hectares of my 1700-hectare Cat Hill property from the Hurunui River. This consent was transferred to me when I bought the property approximately 4 years ago. It has not changed since and I have no intention of applying for more water in the future. If the Hurunui irrigation project proceeds it will have no impact on the existing historical consent. The Cat Hill property cannot be further irrigated. Therefore I do not stand to benefit financially as Russel Norman stated. 
The issue of minimum flow restrictions is irrelevant. In the entire time the consent has been in my name the minimum flow rate restrictions which have triggered at 10 cubic metres per second have never been in place. To claim therefore that I stand to gain some financial benefit due to a greater certainty around these minimum flow rates is simply untenable. 
Russel Norman then claimed that I had inappropriately intervened in the Hurunui water conservation order process. This is also incorrect. Last year in conjunction with the Hurunui mayor Garry Jackson and Bede O’Malley chair of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy steering group I discussed with all parties involved in the Hurunui water conservation order process the possibility of trying to reach a consensus solution but only after reserving their right to appeal to the Environment Court. 
This collaborative approach was undertaken with all parties in an attempt to avoid the combative and expensive court process and it reflects the approach recommended by the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. All parties were initially positive about this approach but subsequently some withdrew support and decided to proceed with Environment Court action. 
Finally I would like to address my answer to written question No. 14809. The question was received in conjunction with 19 other very similar written questions from Russel Norman. In the context of these other questions I interpreted— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is with some regret that I interrupt a personal explanation but this has now gone to the point where the Minister is explaining a ministerial response—an answer to a question to a Minister—and that cannot be a personal explanation. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: If I am allowed to carry on for another minute I think it would explain the situation completely to the satisfaction of Mr Mallard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order the member has raised relates to making a personal explanation about an answer given to a question. Were the question being technically corrected by a Minister the member would have a fair point. I do not know exactly what the Minister will say but if it is about how it relates to him personally then I think it is in order. I will allow the member to continue. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Written question No. 14809 was received in conjunction with 19 very similar written questions from Russel Norman. In the context of these other questions I interpreted written question No. 14809 as asking whether I had discussed with any parties the suggestion of not appealing to the Environment Court. This was certainly not the case as I had urged all parties to lodge an appeal to protect their position in the interim until a consensus solution could be reached. Therefore I answered “No.” to the question. 
In hindsight I can appreciate that that answer was not as clear as it possibly could have been and I apologise for any confusion that it may have caused. However as I have explained I entirely refute all allegations made by Russel Norman in this House on 31 March and 1 April. Thank you.