Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6116. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “We’re not environmental bandits. If we don’t believe drilling can take place in a way that is environmentally sustainable and wouldn’t put at undue risk the environment we wouldn’t go with it.”; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my full statement which included that we want to balance our economic opportunities with our environmental responsibilities; because it is true. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How is deep-sea drilling not putting the environment at undue risk when just this month Dayne Maxwell of Maritime New Zealand said about the Government’s oil response equipment: “Most of the response equipment that we have is designed for near-shore sheltered conditions and really there isn’t available internationally any equipment specifically designed to operate in the rough kind of conditions offshore that we have in New Zealand.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well that is one person’s view. I think it is also worth remembering that if somebody gets a permit to go and undertake these activities in the exclusive economic zone not only would this Government be filling a gap that was previously left open but also there would no doubt be conditions on that. Finally as I said yesterday there have been 50000 wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico. Is the member arguing that all of those wells were a high risk and should have been closed up? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How is deep-sea drilling not putting the environment at undue risk when the head of the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association said in April 2011: “You know there is no absolute guarantee that disasters won’t happen and if you had a major catastrophe it would be just as bad as you have in North America.”—aka Deepwater Horizon? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I mean the member asked me yesterday about the head of Anadarko. One of the things he did say to me in the meeting was that there were a lot of learnings that had come out of that situation and that they can be applied so that those things do not happen again. Secondly if the member is reflecting on a comment by an individual that basically says there are no guarantees in life well actually that is true but on the same basis the member will never get on a plane again never get in a car again never get on a train again never do a lot of things he does because the risk is that something very bad can happen. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How is deep-sea drilling not putting the environment at undue risk when a leak at 2.5 kilometres under water cannot be fixed by divers and companies are forced to rely on robots and relief rigs and this is diametrically different from operating in shallow water like the case in Taranaki where the deepest production well is only 125 metres deep? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: All of those issues in mitigation of any risk would have to be considered as part of an application to drill in the exclusive economic zone. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How is deep-sea drilling not putting the environment at undue risk given that the Gulf of Mexico disaster was stopped only when a second rig drilled a relief well and this Government will not require a relief rig to be on site during deep-sea drilling operations in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is jumping to conclusions. He does not know what conditions will be set. But in the end I mean this is really the fundamental problem is it not with the Green Party. What Green members are arguing is that everything contains some risk so they do not want to do anything except that they want to give lots and lots of money away which is why they come up with the only solution that that person could come up with—print it! 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not a question about the Prime Minister’s former job as a currency speculator. It was about deep-sea oil production. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! I think we will consider it a draw at that point. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the Prime Minister is putting enormous weight on this new piece of flimsy legislation the exclusive economic zone Act how does he think that this particular piece of legislation will plug an oil leak at 2.5 kilometres under water? Does he plan to shove the legislation in the hole? Does he think that might work? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think it is unlikely a couple of bits of paper will work. But let us cut to the chase here. We are a Government that is actually filling a gap that has been missing from our environmental protection. That member has been in the House for how long? And how many members’ bills has he put in about this issue? Oh that is right—none. What he is focused on is printing money. That is his focus of attention. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was not about the Prime Minister’s currency speculation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! On this occasion I invite the member to reflect on the question he asked. It kind of invited the sort of response he got. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why has this Government taken a major anti-environmental turn since the 2011 election; is it because of the rising influence of Steven Joyce and others—environmental bandits within the National Party—who now dominate Cabinet and the Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Shock horror! It is Steven Joyce’s fault. No. It is because this is a Government that wants in an environmentally sensible and considered way also to grow the economic opportunities for New Zealanders. That member wants to go down to the West Coast and say it is really bad that people are losing their jobs potentially at Spring Creek while at exactly the same time he is stopping them getting a job down the road. I call that hypocrisy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 6 the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. [ 
Interruption 
] I beg the member’s pardon. Point of order Dr Russel Norman. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On other occasions when members have accused others of hypocrisy you have ruled— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member’s question invited a pretty robust response from the Prime Minister. That kind of question is always going to elicit a robust response. As Speaker I cannot allow a questioner to get away with all sorts of allegations in their question and prevent the Minister answering it from making a few in return. Where the member keeps his questions objective I will sit on the Ministers answering them but with that sort of question there is no way I can stop the Prime Minister having a fair old go in return. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to be clear you are now saying that members can call other members hypocrites if there is enough provocation. Is that what you are saying? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was so much noise I did not actually hear the final word the Prime Minister used. I did not hear that word. I will check with the Prime Minister whether he actually said the member was a hypocrite. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister says he did not. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! No no. Order! I have not called the right honourable Prime Minister. I am not inviting him to say any more. I did not hear that word used. I have checked with the Prime Minister and he says he did not say the member was a hypocrite. Therefore that is the end of the matter. I have to take the Prime—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. I must take the Prime Minister’s word for that. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I ask you then Mr Speaker to check the  
Hansard 
 at a later stage today and to come back tomorrow or later this afternoon with a clear ruling as to whether or not members are now allowed to accuse another member of hypocrisy in this House if there is sufficient provocation according to you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The matter is very simple. As I understand it the Prime Minister was saying that a position represented hypocrisy. That is not accusing a member of being a hypocrite. It is the same issue we have had in this House the last few days over whether members provide false information to the House—that kind of thing. This is a robust place. The member in asking his question accused certain Ministers in the Government of all sorts of things. I am not going to prevent Ministers from using pretty robust language in return. I am satisfied the Prime Minister did not accuse the member’s co-leader of being a hypocrite. And I will check the  
Hansard 
 just to make sure that is correct. But the matter is—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The matter is very simple. I do not want to see this House ruling out more and more words. It is crazy that we should do that but I do not want members to be accusing other members directly of being hypocrites. I do not want that to be happening. I do not believe that happened. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you explain to the House how someone could hold a position with hypocrisy—a policy that is hypocrisy—and not be a hypocrite? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think there is a difference just as in recent times we have had issues of members providing false information being distinct from being a liar. I think a position can appear to be a position of hypocrisy without accusing the member directly of being a hypocrite. I just think we have go to be—for goodness’ sake we are grown up. We use robust language. I do not want to be ruling out endless words in this place. Enough have been ruled out long before my time I think to last us for many many decades and I am not intending to rule out any more. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to refer you to previous Speakers’ rulings where using the word “hypocrisy” in relation to another member has been ruled out. It applies regardless of whether the term is used in reference to an individual or to a group of members. Mr Speaker you might like to have a look right back as far as Guinness in 1905. I have heard it constantly— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have heard sufficient. Look that might be the case. I am not going back on my ruling though. You know I am not. For years we have heard members getting all upset over words of very little serious damage to members and yet the other language they use and the way members attack each other at times have been totally derogatory. This is a robust place. You know sometimes we should toughen up a little bit. The member raising the point of order is not unknown for being fairly tough. I am not going to allow members to accuse each other of being hypocrites but a position of hypocrisy is not something I am going to rule out. For goodness’ sake if I was accused of that I would not lose too much sleep over it. People are entitled to all sorts of views. This place is a place where robust debate happens. But I will not have members accuse each other directly of being hypocrites or liars. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have dealt with that matter so I will go to Dr Russel Norman. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I support your ruling actually. I think “Fair enough.” So what you are saying is that it is OK for us to say “The Government says it cares about the environment but actually destroys it. That’s hypocrisy.” That is a fair statement for us to make now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The only thing is in asking a question it would be unwise—in asking a question—because it invites a very robust answer. The member has seen today that asking provocative questions sometimes delivers answers the members do not like. The incentive is always there. Members need only look at recent history. Where members ask the toughest questions for a Minister to answer—I know from years of experience in answering them—they are the simple direct questions. They are by far the hardest questions to answer. If members want to hold the executive to account ask simple tough questions. Do not make fancy provocative political statements instead of asking a question. We have seen it in recent weeks in this House where Ministers have been held to account where simple tough questions have been asked. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may be appropriate given your ruling which I am not challenging that you then advise your Deputy Speaker and Assistant Speakers because they have ruled exactly the opposite way from you as others have since 1905. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We do not need to take this matter any further. For goodness’ sake we are all grown-ups in this place. I do not want to see language that is common-use language ruled out in this House. I just ask members to use a little bit of common sense—a little bit of common sense. Accusing someone of being a hypocrite is not acceptable. If members in question time wish to put provocative language into questions do not ask the Speaker to protect them from the answers given. If members want to hold the executive to account ask simple tough questions without any opinions in them and the Speaker will make sure you get answers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to confirm your position now: it is all right to suggest that you act with hypocrisy but not that you are a hypocrite? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a difference between accusing a member of acting with hypocrisy and a position appearing to be a hypocritical position. I just ask members to be reasonable. You know it is not that difficult. There are actually important issues being debated in this House and this is so pathetic that we get all worked up over whether or not a position might appear to be hypocritical. That is just childish stuff. I would like to think we are actually a bit more grown up than that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I think all members and I suspect on both sides—no one is getting worked up; they are simply asking for some clarity and consistency from you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I thank the member for that. I think I have given reasonable clarity to people with reasonable intellect. Question No. 6 the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. [ 
Interruption 
] Order!