Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13778. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to theMinister of Conservation: How could he say on 17 September 2013 “I did not know that this draft document even existed until this morning” when his Weekly Report from 29 July 2013 stated a submission should be lodged “requesting that the Board requests further information by way of an independent peer review of the proposed approach to nutrient management and the potential effect of the proposed nutrient limits and targets on the freshwater values in the Tukituki catchment”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The member half quotes the weekly report. What it actually said was: “The Department is evaluating the proposed plan change and resource consents. The Department’s preliminary view is that a submission should be lodged to the plan change ...”. That does not say that a draft submission had been prepared. I stand by my statement that I did not know until 17 September that the 34-page submission that was leaked existed.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he say to reporters on Thursday 19 September: “There was no mention to me of a draft submission. I did not know of the existence of a draft submission.” when the agenda for his meeting with officials on Monday 29 July outlined the submission’s contents he was briefed on it he expressed concern about it and he asked for a copy of it to be delivered to his office the next day?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The submission that was delivered to me the next day was radically different from the 34-page document that was leaked. I can only quote Doris Johnston who I note members opposite said told the truth when she said: “He never saw the draft submission that everyone’s talking about.”Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In respect of the answer from the Minister I do not believe it addressed the question that the Hon Ruth Dyson asked. Her question was very specific. He began to talk about other aspects of submissions but not what she asked—Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion I do not agree with the member. The question asked—[Interruption] Order! I will be asking the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to leave the Chamber if I get an interjection like that again. The question asked about what the Minister said to reporters on a particular day and I think the answer given by the Hon Dr Nick Smith adequately addressed the question.Nicky Wagner: What advice has the Minister received on when the senior managers in the Department of Conservation saw the leaked 34-page draft submission?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that Doris Johnston who was on leave prior to my meeting on 29 July had not read the leaked 34-page draft submission at the time ofmy meeting. I can also quote from an email the next day from other senior managers which I am happy to table which said this: “None of us have seen the submission or briefing”—that is the day after my meeting. I was clearly not alone in not being aware of the leaked draft.Hon Ruth Dyson: Did he or any of his staff have any discussions with officials from the Department of Conservation in relation to their submission between his meeting with officials on Monday 29 July when the nitrate issue was going to be a key feature of the submission and Wednesday 31 July when he received the final submission with all the water quality issues removed?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No.Hon Ruth Dyson: Did he have any part in the decision to establish the Government fund for irrigation infrastructure from which $1.67 million has been granted for theRuataniwha Dam project?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: For 3 years I was the Minister for the Environment. I had an intense interest in water issues. Included in that was achieving the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. I had no direct involvement in the issues relating to the investments around irrigation. That was led by the then Minister for Primary Industries who is currently the Speaker.Hon Ruth Dyson: Does he agree with the comment in the briefing note to him from Wednesday 31 July which noted: “… the department is not submitting on the one-nutrient management approach as the conservation values of the Tukituki catchment do not justify the resource investment required.” in light of the fact that the submission on that very point had already been written?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the substantive briefing that I received on 31 July there were two substantive reasons given for not proceeding with a submission on the plan change issues around nutrients. The first of those was that the Department of Conservation accepted that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) science was robust and the NIWA science was different from what some staff at the Department of Conservation had. The second was that the amount of resource the amount of money that would need to be spent to contest the NIWA position—Grant Robertson: They’d already done it.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No because they would require witnesses and the evidence would be larger than what could be justified.Nicky Wagner: When does the Minister believe the department changed its position and why?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The key Department of Conservation staff member who wrote the weekly report with the preliminary view saying that we should lodge a submission on nutrient issues wrote that on Thursday 25 July. On Friday 26 July he attended a full day’s meeting convened by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council with all the scientists and advisers from NIWA and the like. At the end of that meeting on the Friday he told the regional council that the Department of Conservation’s submission was likely to focus on only the inundation issue and not the plan change issue over nutrients subject to senior managers’ approval. That was 3 days before my meeting. On Tuesday 30 July an email stated that he and the other planning managers “are not convinced we should be submitting on the plan change” and that was confirmed as the department’s position the following day.Hon Ruth Dyson: Does he agree with the comment in the briefing note to him of Wednesday 31 July which noted: “… the Department is not submitting on the one-nutrient management approach as the conservation values of the Tukituki catchment do not justify the resource investment required.” given that the Tukituki catchment and estuary is a significant conservation area in the regional coastal plan is noted as one ofthe areas with important natural and historic values in the Hawke’s Bay conservancy coastal environment is a recommended area for protection under the department’s protected natural areas programme due to its ecological and biodiversity values and is also being classified as being of national importance for fisheries?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is another example of the member only half quoting the report. What that report actually said in the summary was that the Tukituki value was of medium value—that is the first thing. The second thing was that that report said that the Department of Conservation accepted thatNIWA’s science was robust. They were the reasons that it chose not to submit on the plan change issue.Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table two documents. Can I say first of all that they have been in the public arena but not for nearly a decade which is why I do not think they are readily available now. The first is a publication by the Department of Conservation from December 2004 identifying freshwater ecosystems of national importance for biodiversity which includes the Tukituki catchment.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave together on both documents. What is the second document?Hon Ruth Dyson: The second one is calledWater Bodies of National Importance also from December 2004 published by the Ministry for the Environment which also includes the Tukituki catchment.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table two documents a Department of Conservation document from 2004 and a Ministry for the Environment document from 2004. Is there any objection to that being done? There appears to be none. Those documents can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table an email between senior Department of Conservation managers on 30 July that makes it plain that the senior managers were not convinced of the merits to submit on the plan change and that none of them on the Tuesday after I had the meeting had actually seen the 34-page document.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been well explained. Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is none. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I just ask for your consideration in relation to documents where leave is sought for them to be tabled. It is particularly in relation to a previous document that the Minister sought to table after my request because he had been quoting from it. The document that was actually tabled was not the document referred to as the “three emails between”. In fact so much had been deleted from one of the emails—not just the identifying points—that it was not comprehensible. So I seek your guidance about whether when documents are sought to be tabled those actual documents have to be tabled and whether it has to be identified that large chunks of them have been removed.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking—Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I will allow the Hon Dr Nick Smith to speak to that point of order.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: With both the documents that I tabled earlier and the document that I sought to table today the only thing that has been removed are the names of the Department of Conservation staff and the reason I do that is that it is perfectly proper for us to have a good old robust debate in Parliament but I do think that we owe some protection to the privacy of the department’s staff. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need no further assistance. Could I just say to the Hon Ruth Dyson who raised the question that I suggest she look at Speakers’ ruling 149/5 which basically says that if any member seeks to table a document and grossly misleads the House in the description of that document then it could potentially be a contempt and members know what the means are to follow that up.