Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5088] 
4.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: With the worsening electricity crisis and concerns for adequate electricity supply in future years will he reconsider amending the Conservation Act 1987 to enable the proposed Dobson hydro scheme to go ahead as the proposed scheme is in a high rainfall area; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 No I will not. The proposed power scheme would take some time to construct and is irrelevant in terms of the electricity situation this winter. The modest amount of power likely from this scheme does not in any case justify the flooding of an area of valley-floor kahikatea and matai forest protected within an ecological area and established by the National Government in 1983. 
Gordon Copeland 
: When the Minister stated in the  
Greymouth Evening Star  
with reference to the Dobson hydro proposal that there are “better projects around” what specific projects was he referring to? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Quite a number of options were suggested in that very same paper the member referred to. I would suggest that he and other members of the House agree to my tabling this document which I propose to do now. I seek leave to table an article from the Greymouth  
Evening Star 
 which lists quite a number of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister could also list a couple of those options as requested. I will take the tabling of the document at the end of the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Project Aqua the proposed scheme for the Waitaki River would generate up to 570 megawatts compared with the 60 megawatts from the proposed Dobson scheme. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 16 April had a suggestion from Mighty River Power that it would put a 100-megawatt geothermal plant at Kawerau. Those would be much more viable options. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on other power generation proposals for the West Coast? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am trying to gather how this goes now. Mr Copeland asked the question. United Future has an understanding with this Government in respect of supply and now you are giving Mr Parker a supplementary question. Now that is not how it goes in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I am sorry but that is how it has gone in the last 4 years. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well it is not going to go on for many more. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will not raise that point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well I have raised it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I have ruled it out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I want to finish my point of order and not be constantly interrupted before I have completed what I want to say. The fact of the matter is that everybody on this side of the House expected the next question to come to this side after Mr Copeland’s supplementary question. That is what the press gallery and everybody else watching this TV show would be expecting. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: A TV show! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well it is being shown to about 70000 New Zealanders who have nothing better to do. My point is why is there a change now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There has been no change. The United Future party is not part of the Government coalition. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on other power generation proposals for the West Coast? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen an excellent report in the  
Greymouth 
Evening Star 
 the headline of which was “Plugging into the Coast’s power potential”. I seek leave of the House to table this as there seems to be a great deal of interest in the subject. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did he in an interview on National Radio on 16 April say: “This project has already been to the High Court and was rejected.” when in fact it has never been to the High Court or any other court and the decision was made by a Minister of the Crown or is this just part of a misleading campaign for this Government not to take responsibility for its own decisions? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Clearly that member was not listening carefully to the interview because in that interview I made the point the topic had been to the High Court. In fact that member should recall that in 1995 his predecessor Denis Marshall as Minister of Conservation declined the flooding of an area of conservation land in Buller for a hydro scheme. It was tested in the High Court and thrown out. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table this transcript which says: “This project—” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows tabling is done at the end of a question. However the Minister twice asked for leave to table. I allowed it and as I have done that for him I will now allow it for the member. Is there any objection to the tabling of Dr Nick Smith’s statement? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to read the transcript so the House can be clear about exactly what the Minister did say on National Radio. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to read the transcript. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not read the transcript but I heard my colleague read a sentence when he sought the tabling of it and the quote was: “This project—”. Given that the Minister in his answer said he did not talk about the project he talked about the topic I wonder whether the Minister wishes to reconsider his answer because answers in this House are meant to be accurate and if the Minister has misrepresented this to the House now is the time to correct it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is up to the member or the Minister. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I want to make it clear to the House that my recollection of that interview was that flooding ecological land is the topic I was talking about. My reference—[ 
Interruption 
] I thank Dr Smith. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn people about calling out and interjecting during points of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s not a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a point of order and that is Mr Brownlee’s last warning for the day. It is a point of order and the member is speaking to it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is misusing the point of order procedure. He should actually be seeking leave to make an explanation which the House would give to him but he should do it properly not under a point of order procedure. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member can raise a point of order outside the point of order. This is supplementary question material so far that I have been listening to not a point of order. The member was speaking to the point of order. Had the Minister finished? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No I had not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That’s a complete abuse of the point of order procedure. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member will now stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I stand withdraw and apologise and say we are having a complete abuse of the point of order procedure. The member is correcting his answer and you and I know that he should not do that by way of a point of order. He should seek leave and make a proper explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now leave the Chamber. He is way out of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: So I am now being thrown out for insisting that the Standing Orders be followed. What you are doing is outrageous. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I made a legitimate point of order you know I am correct and you are now throwing me out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was on his feet explaining the difference and in fact used the words “in his recollection”—referring to whether it was an individual project or the general topic. That is in fact correcting the answer. He took my invitation which you said he was entitled to take to correct his answer. It is quite wrong to do that by way of a point of order. I understood he was doing it by way of a correction. When a member then goes through the process of pointing out that simple fact as laid out under the Standing Orders and then gets thrown out because of it that is I think quite wrong. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I think the House does need clarification on that point. My understanding of the Standing Orders is quite clear. The Minister in the situation we have just experienced should have sought the leave of the House to make an explanation. My colleague Richard Prebble has been thrown out of the House for standing up for the rights of the Opposition on this issue and I think that does give the Chair cause for reflection. I suggest that was an over-reaction. I also suggest that if that interpretation is correct you should invite my colleague to return to the Chamber forthwith. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is clear to me having watched the episode that Mr Prebble was thrown out for continuing to interject and yell abuse at the Chair during a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The problem here arose because a Minister sought to clarify a situation from his memory when he knew full well that in front of him—provided by Dr Smith—was the transcript which if read out would have solved the problem. It is sneaky and it is weasel words; that is what has been condoned here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I first want to deal with the matter of Mr Prebble. He was not thrown out for attempting to raise a point of order; he was thrown out for defying the Chair. That was the reason and the same will happen to anyone who does that. I will not have that in this House. The second point is that the Minister was speaking to a point of order but it is clear that it was not a valid point of order and the matter ends at this point. However supplementary questions can continue. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two points I want to make. The first is that when the Minister was answering his question initially he had a document in front of him. You directed him to read from the document to make a couple of points from it — 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In answer to the question. 
John Carter 
: Correct in answer to his question. I wonder therefore given that you gave him an instruction or suggested to him that he read from the document whether you might suggest to him that he read from the transcript so that the House does know what it states. You could ask him to do that in the same way that you asked him in the first instance. That would clarify the matter for us and it would be useful. The second point I want to make is given that you have asked Mr Prebble to leave—in circumstances that there has been some question about—I wonder whether you could ask him to be recalled at the end of this question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not because as every member knows he was thrown out for defying the Chair and shouting abuse which he cannot do. That was the reason he was thrown out and everyone knows it. On the member’s first point all I can say is that if a member or a Minister has misled the House there is an appropriate way to deal with the matter and we all know what that way is. I can then receive correspondence on the matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a serious development that arises from your last statement—that is Ministers who wait until some distant time in the day when no one is in the House when the press gallery is totally empty and when the television lights are off and then come down to the House and correct their answer. It is wrong and they should be told either to make the correction immediately or to take the consequences the next day in a privilege hearing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I thought that was the case I would be the first to jump on the Minister as hard as I could. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been much confusion here. First of all I do not believe that Mr Chris Carter called out “Speaking to the point of order”. So there was some confusion as to what grounds he was on his feet. I think if you reflect back you yourself were confused because at one point you said he was speaking to a point of order and at another point you thought he was answering a question. He cannot have been doing both and if he was correcting an answer there is a proper procedure. I think that it is harsh. We had supplementary questions to ask the Minister. There was a lot of concern—not just on the part of members of the Opposition but it should be on the part of members of this whole House—about answers given by Ministers and the appropriate way in which those answers are corrected. We had a situation with a Minister on his feet but under what pretence or guise— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have consulted. The member was speaking to a point of order and not answering a question. There is no current supplementary question before the House and I am prepared to call— 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: For the sake of speed and of getting through question time I seek leave now to make a personal statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. It is in relation to this matter I presume? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is in relation to this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member can only object. He cannot speak to it. Is there any objection? I call the Hon Chris Carter. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: On quite a number of occasions I have been asked questions on this issue before and it has been raised in the House. I spoke recently at a meeting of mayors in Kaikoura on the issue of the dam on the Arnold River near Dobson. On each occasion I have made reference to the actions of Mr Denis Marshall when he was Minister of Conservation and to having this issue tested in the High Court. I have used it if one likes as a sort of icon case about the difficulty of flooding or damaging conservation land. 
My recollection of the interview on Radio New Zealand is that I made reference to that. Now as all members of this House know I have not read the transcript yet. It may well give the impression that I was referring specifically to the Dobson case. If it does I apologise to the House. In fact I was referring to the precedent set in the Buller case under the National Government. That is an issue I have referred to many times and perhaps may well refer to again in the future. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister has compounded the problem. He was given then a clear chance to go to the transcript he has before him and to read it out. That is what the question was about; that is what he was required to answer. Instead he took the time to make a ministerial statement and in an evasive and obtuse way he tried clumsily to get out of it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We cannot discuss a personal explanation made to this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hope it is not going over this matter any further. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. It relates to Standing Order 343 and members have a right to ask the Chair questions relating to the Standing Orders. That Standing Order is very clear: a member may make a personal explanation about matters of a personal nature with leave of the House. I assume that when the Minister spoke to the mayors at whichever gathering it was it was as the Minister and I assume that when he spoke in the radio interview of which the transcript is provided he was speaking as the Minister so his statement should have been a ministerial statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to read the second sentence in that Standing Order: “A personal explanation may not be debated.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is exactly the point I raise. The Hon Chris Carter should not have used a personal explanation in the way he has. There is nothing personal about that at all. He is trying to explain his actions as a Minister. It seems that the Opposition’s role of scrutinising a Minister is being subverted by his being allowed to pursue this particular Standing Order in his own defence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. He sought leave from the House. I asked twice and leave was given. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I also raise a matter because I think we have missed the point here. Standing Order 343 is clearly about a personal explanation. The Minister was not giving a personal explanation; he was replying in his ministerial capacity to a matter under his responsibilities as a Minister. His statement should have been a ministerial statement. I think we need a clarification of this point before we move on. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The fact that the member is a Minister does not get around the fact that if a member is talking about words he has used and whether he may have misled the House in using those words that is a matter of a personal explanation. Whether one is saying that about what one said as a Minister or simply as an individual the same conditions apply. It does not require a ministerial statement. For one thing a personal explanation has to be believed by the House; a ministerial statement does not. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am ready to rule on this matter. I say once again that the Minister chose to ask for leave. I twice asked and the House concurred. A personal explanation can be used about an answer a Minister has given. That is always the way in which a misleading reply is cleared up. The Minister chose to do that right now instead of later as it was suggested he might do. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I need guidance now because the supplementary question I am about to seek the call for is in effect debating the correctness of the statement that has just been made. I did not know anything about the background— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will give the member the perfect opportunity to ask his supplementary question and I will listen to it very carefully and liberally. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In the same Radio New Zealand interview why did the Minister refer to it as “a little micro-dam” and four times referred to it as “a micro - hydro scheme” when in all the expert literature both from an engineering and sector point of view they are schemes of less than 5 megawatts when this is a 62 megawatt scheme and noting that in my own electorate of Nelson 400 people have been put out of work because of the power shortages in our region will he now not accept that he has consistently misled the public about his responsibility and the importance of this scheme to the top of the south? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can give the member the assurance that I will now call it a middle-sized hydro scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question I call the Hon Ken Shirley. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why am I not getting the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has had a supplementary question and Mr Shirley from ACT has not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I have not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has had a supplementary question. Both I and the Clerk have it registered. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I have not. I do not care what he has written down there. I have not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member assures me that he has not I accept his word and I will call him as soon as I have heard Mr Shirley. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We did not slave to get ourselves to No. 3 in this country’s politics only to be taken fourth and fifth in this House. Those are the rules. Those are the precedents that go back a long long way and I am asserting them. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Sit down Winston. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Shut up. Sit down. I am speaking. It is my point of order. Sit him down. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise my point again Mr Speaker. You know the order of precedence in this House. This is the second time today I believe that you have attempted to rearrange supplementary questions or reassert them or reorganise them. We do not accept that. I am now asking to have this question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Whether or not through error I have already called Mr Shirley. I will call the member next. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How does the Minister reconcile his repeated statement that the Conservation Act precludes him from engaging in land swaps that would allow the Department of Conservation to receive 700 hectares of prime forested land on Mount Buckley in exchange for some 250 hectares of cut-over lands in Card Creek thus allowing the significant expansion of TrustPower’s Arnold River power scheme; how does he reconcile those statements with the fact that last September he engaged in a land swap of Department of Conservation land in Bruce Bay to allow Te Runanga o Maakawhio to build a marae? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That member’s question contains a number of erroneous points. The one I would like to address principally is that the Mount Buckley area that is proposed for exchange has itself been logged for timber and in any case is under no threat. It is hill-country forest whereas the area that is to be flooded is valley-floor kahikatea of which we have less than 5 percent left in the country. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. It was how did he reconcile the land swap issue with— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No please be seated. The Minister addressed the question. He might not have given a satisfactory answer but that is not my concern. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He did not address the question. The question was not in two parts; it was one question: how does he reconcile the fact that he is claiming there cannot be a land swap for Arnold River because it is Department of Conservation land yet last September the Minister engaged in a land swap of Department of Conservation land to allow a marae to be built in Jacksons Bay? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is only using debating material. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Before I ask my supplementary question am I right or wrong about having asked a question on this issue? I am right am I not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of us— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Just say so so that we can get things clear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the member had. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am telling you I was not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have accepted the member’s word. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes and my point is that we will not take you reorganising question time as you please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well I think I am entitled to an apology. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I am getting sick and tired of this. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So am I. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now the member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am on my feet and I am ruling. I say to the member that I checked to see whether he had asked a question. I had listed it. I carefully asked my assistant. He had listed New Zealand First. A member of his own party came to the Table to check because there was some confusion about it. I said that if I had made an error I accepted the member’s word and I have accepted the member’s word. I then called Mr Shirley. There has not been any change. In future of course the member will be called third. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is not my point. My point of order is that we do not accept your decision in respect of Mr Parker and I certainly do not in this case as well. That is twice in the space of four questions. We will not accept that. I ask you to explain why it happened. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. Now the member will stand withdraw and apologise. I will not have the ruling about Mr Parker questioned because it is consistent with the rulings I have given over 4 years and I have already said to the member that I have accepted his word on the other matter. We have finished that particular point. I want now to come to the member’s supplementary question which he is entitled to ask. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to have Mr Peters expelled from this Chamber but I ask you to reflect on the issue of consistency when you consider your treatment of Mr Prebble who in contesting the application of the Standing Orders and having an exchange with you was not asked to withdraw or apologise but was summarily thrown out of this Chamber. When Mr Peters did the same thing—and again I am not saying that Mr Peters should be thrown out—he was treated with some considerable leniency and was then asked to withdraw and apologise. I suggest that what is good for one leader should be good for the other and indeed for all members of this House. I ask you to reflect on that sincerely and to reflect on whether you treated Mr Prebble a little harshly. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Indeed you did call upon Mr Prebble to withdraw and apologise and in fact he did do so and then carried on yelling from his seat at you on a regular and continual basis for a period of time which Mr Peters did not do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is precisely correct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When the Minister had before him the transcript beginning with the words “This project” why did he not read it to the House or is it that the transcript again states everything that he has attempted to explain to this House since he was asked to qualify what he said? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I repeat to this House that if I gave the impression I was talking about the Dobson project I apologise. What I was referring to was the precedent set by the Buller case—something that I have referred to often. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister believe that Dobson is the only site on the West Coast on which a hydroelectricity dam could be built that would make economic and environmental sense as implied by TrustPower; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No a number of options are available and I refer the member again to the article that I am about to table in the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister visited the site of the Dobson hydro scheme; if so what are his impressions concerning its environmental robustness? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No but I am going there in a couple of weeks’ time. However I do have full confidence in the ecological reports describing the area including those done by TrustPower. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If conservation land is so sacrosanct that its status can never be changed why is there before this House a bill in the name of the Hon John Tamihere the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill that changes the conservation status of eight different blocks of land including ecological reserve; and why does this Minister simply not come clean and say this is not a legal issue but a political issue in which Labour is being held to ransom by the Greens? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That member once held the position of Minister of Conservation and he I am sure knows that sections 7 and 16 of the Conservation Act relate to the disposal of conservation land. As the Buller case which I have referred to a number of times in this House showed in the High Court to change that would require a major change. That member when he was the Minister of Conservation added 1800 hectares to the Dobson site. Why does he want to destroy it now? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table a map of the area involved in the Dobson dam which shows quite clearly that the area that it is proposed for it is nowhere near the area that was added by the previous National Government. 
Document not tabled. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why did the Minister tell Radio New Zealand that he would need a law change to allow the Dobson River scheme to proceed using an infinitesimal fraction of the Department of Conservation’s gorse and broom when section 18(7) of the Conservation Act states specifically that the Minister may by notice in the  
Gazette 
 vary or revoke the purpose or all or any of the purposes for which an ecological area is held and it shall thereafter be held accordingly? I urge the Minister to consider the consequences of deliberately misleading the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question and do not make a comment. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I refer again to the Buller case which showed that under the current Act one cannot destroy ecological land for any purpose. One would have to have a law change to do that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the High Court decision in respect of the Ngakawau case which made it plain that the Minister had the discretion. 
Document not tabled. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Further to the question from my colleague Mr Ken Shirley why will the Minister not consent to the Arnold River scheme proceeding to build a hydro dam by swapping Department of Conservation land as he did last September when he swapped prime rimu forest in Jacksons Bay to allow the building of a marae? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not prepared to swap land of lesser value for land of more value that would be destroyed. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Given that one of the Minister’s reasons for turning down the Dobson hydro dam proposal was that conservation groups would be outraged did he take into account the views of any other groups and their probable reaction—for example the people of the West Coast? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I was delighted to drive 2½ hours from Christchurch to Kaikoura and then 2½ hours back to Christchurch last week to meet the mayors of the upper South Island to discuss that very issue. One of the hallmarks of my ministry I hope is a willingness and a desire to engage with anyone interested in conservation issues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Minister whether he will now read out from the transcript the comments beginning with “This project” or can I take his declining to do so as clear evidence that he has misled this House deliberately? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Like probably most members of this House I am very keen to see question time end soon so I am not prepared to do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: So too am I and that reply does not help. I want the Minister now to address the question or I will take further steps. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I first asked the Minister whether he would read those comments out and the answer to that is yes or no. Secondly I asked whether I can I take his refusal to read them out as clear evidence of his attempt to mislead this House. He has given us half an answer. I want the answer to the first question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the Minister say “No” quite clearly. That addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is pretty rudimentary stuff. I asked whether the Minister would read those comments out and the answer to that would be yes or no. I then asked whether I could take an answer of no to mean that he had deliberately attempted to mislead the House. Is that answer no to the first question no to the second question or half an answer to both questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am now losing patience. The member was asked a specific question. He said “No” and there cannot be any clearer answer than that except to say yes.