Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5170] 
5.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Following his comments on National Radio on 16 April 2003 and in question time yesterday relating to the Dobson hydroelectric scheme will he accept that when he said: “This particular site because of its ecological values that are fairly unique on the West Coast is a site worth preserving. We’ve been down this path … this project has already been to the High Court it has been rejected.” he was not referring to the Dobson hydroelectric scheme and that the key reason the Dobson scheme is not progressing is because he is not prepared to exercise the discretionary powers contained in the Conservation Act 1987? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 The Conservation Act does not give the Minister any discretion to remove land from ecological areas. The land still has the values it was protected for in the first place. As I made clear in the House yesterday the law regarding the disposal of conservation land has been tested once already in the High Court in the Buller electricity case when the court upheld the decision of the Hon Denis Marshall to decline a proposal to flood conservation land for a hydro scheme. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is the Minister aware of section 18(7) of the Conservation Act which clearly gives the Minister of Conservation discretionary powers to revoke designations under the Conservation Act and that that provision was specifically put in the Conservation Act to allow situations like the Dobson scheme to proceed on the conservation estate? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That member’s interpretation of the Conservation Act is not one that is upheld by my department or myself. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Why was the Card Creek ecological area originally protected? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In 1983 the then National Government led by the late Rt Hon Rob Muldoon proudly protected that area for the express purpose of and I quote from the  
Gazette 
 notice “preserving an example of forest in a wide valley floor including nikau and an unusually high proportion of kahikatea and matai”. It is that very valley floor forest described by the Hon Nick Smith as mostly gorse that would be destroyed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister state in his press release yesterday that that land was in terms of the land swap of higher value than that which was proposed to be swapped for it when the Department of Conservation’s own report done when Helen Clark was Minister of Conservation states exactly the opposite of that; in fact can I quote from the report done at that time which states that the area to be swapped is of national conservation importance is a crucial wildlife habitat and has significant scientific values and high landscape values while at the same time the land in question that would be flooded was allocated to Timberlands West Coast because it was of low conservation value? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The area that will be flooded is in the Card Creek ecological area an area that was gazetted in 1983. It was not transferred to Timberlands. May I have an opportunity to describe the Mount Buckley area the area that is proposed for the swap. I asked the Department of Conservation to give me a brief description of it. The total block is 720 hectares of which 500 hectares is logged podocarp hardwood beech forest that has a canopy of 50 years or more. That is quite good forest. The additional 200 hectares is land that was logged in the 1970s and 1980s. It is bisected by a four-wheel drive track and has a power line running through it. It has considerably lower ecological values than the area that would be destroyed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain to the House which is the Government’s position in respect of Dobson: the position that was expressed by Damien O’Connor to the local media in his area yesterday that the Government is open-minded about the Dobson scheme or the position that he has expressed as Minister that it is dead in the water? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I repeat to the House that under existing legislation I cannot swap land that has ecological value status unless that land loses its conservation value. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked a very simple question about the Government’s position—the position outlined by Damien O’Connor in the local newspaper or the position that the Minister has outlined. The Minister did not talk about that at all but talked about whether he could swap land. We have heard that answer before. He was asked what the Government’s position is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister gave the Government’s position. He is the Minister concerned with that matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister tell the House today why it was that yesterday he claimed his comments did not relate to the Dobson hydroelectric scheme or is it a case of one of two things: he was mistaken or he was plain lying? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot suggest that another member is deliberately not telling the truth. The member can ask whether the Minister was wrong; that is perfectly correct. But he cannot say that the Minister was deliberately misstating the truth. I would like the member to rephrase the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday that Minister had the benefit of the transcript right in front of him. He has sought to avoid it the whole time. You allowed him to do that and he got away with saying something that is patently not true. I am giving him an option now to say that he was mistaken yesterday in which case he obviates the confirmation of the second alternative. Yesterday he wasted the whole Parliament’s time with the transcript next to him. He is laughing now of course. That is the kind of thing that is condoned in this Parliament but a Minister would not get away with that behaviour in any other Western democracy. Yesterday the Minister had the transcript next to him. He knew he was wrong. He would not refer to it. Today he is still not prepared because you are protecting him to get up and say he was mistaken yesterday and did not deliberately lie. I am giving him that option. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I am not. Please be seated. I refer the member to Standing Order 116 which states: “If any offensive or disorderly words are used whether by a member who is speaking or by a member who is present the Speaker shall intervene.” The member may not accuse another member of lying. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have a supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will withdraw and apologise for suggesting a member is lying. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want a point of clarification on that statement. I think it is worth considering this point. I listened to the question that Mr Peters asked. He did not state that the Minister was lying; in fact he did not suggest he was at all. Mr Peters asked whether the Minister was lying; he did not say he was. He was merely asking the question. That is quite different. If I stood and said that a certain member was lying that is a statement to say that he was. But it is quite different to ask whether there was a lie and that is what the member was asking. The Minister can merely confirm that he was not lying and we can move on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member used a disorderly expression which is contrary to Standing Order 116. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that yesterday the Minister had the benefit of the transcript before him affirming the comments he had made can he now confirm that the comments were referring to the Dobson hydroelectric scheme—or is it one of two cases: firstly he was mistaken yesterday or secondly he does not give a damn about the truth? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use that phrase either. The member can certainly talk about the first point. The second point implies telling a lie and is out of order. The member has one final opportunity to ask a supplementary question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked whether the Minister actually cared about the truth. That is not saying someone is lying. We could say there are lots of Ministers who do not care about the truth but that is not saying they are lying. I cannot see how you could possibly rule that phrase out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member is implying negligence that is different from deliberately doing so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He is saying that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member is saying that I would like him to rephrase the question so I can listen to it in its entirety. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What are the options the Minister wants to put before the House—he was mistaken he is careless as to the truth he does not give a hoot about the responsibilities of his job or the Prime Minister allows incompetence if Ministers are allowed to behave in that way in this House; if so which one of the four options are we to take as being his answer now? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: None of the above. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the principal question from the Hon Ken Shirley there is a direct quote from that transcript—which we were not allowed to see yesterday because people took objection when a member sought to table it. The direct quote states: “We’ve been down this path … this project has already been to the High Court”. The Minister said he was referring to some other project done at an earlier time when Denis Marshall was the Minister of Conservation. Is that a mistake a distortion of the truth or what is it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked for leave of the House and I put it twice to the House. He gave a personal explanation and made it clear as to what his position was. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are required to take the statement of a Minister or a member at face value and cannot contest it. But we have a situation now that is most absurd. The Minister clearly was referring in those comments to the Dobson hydroelectric scheme. We all know that you are stopping the whole country from learning that he was wrong—that he was mistaken. You are allowing him to get up and say in reply to the four options I gave him that none of them applies. Frankly if— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: So he’s saying he wasn’t wrong. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He is saying he was not wrong. If he was not wrong then how can that reply stand? This is an absurdity that we are now debating; and we will go on for one more day in question time whilst he gets away with it again. Usually in other democracies Prime Ministers fire people like that because Speakers do not condone people like that and Parliaments will not accept behaviour like that. So why are we putting up with it today? I think the Minister should be required to get up in the House and explain what those words actually meant—for the first time in 2 days. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Yesterday the Minister took a point of order in terms of an explanation and stated quite clearly that he had meant to refer to similar kinds of cases the precedent effect of which was about the nature of the legal basis on which such a decision could be made. In other words he said his previous statement was not meant to refer to this specific case. We cannot go over that ground again. If people are asking now whether he was mistaken about the second statement I say clearly he was not mistaken about the second statement. He has already corrected the first statement—yesterday. I want to take the point of order further. Not for the first time today and many times over recent weeks that member has accused you of sheltering another member of Parliament. I suggest that is totally out of order—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Mark will leave the Chamber. I have warned people about interjecting during points of order. I ignored it the first two times that he did it but that was the third time and he reflected on me. [ 
Interruption 
] I beg your pardon? 
Ron Mark 
: I heard it all on the radio yesterday. Mr Speaker it does not do the House any credit at all this sort of thing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave. He has come very close to being named. 
Ron Mark withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I suggest to you that it is quite disorderly for members to suggest you are sheltering other members. You are impartial in the way that you deliver your rulings and all members have to accept those rulings. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: With reference to the point of order raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his colleague Peter Brown I say that the transcript has now become available though the Opposition parties were blocked from tabling it yesterday. Mention is made of it in question 5. The whole topic of the Minister’s interview was about the Dobson scheme. The Minister said: “This particular site”. He went on to say: “this project has already been to the High Court.” It was all about the Dobson scheme yet yesterday in the House he said he was talking generally about the topic and then referred to the Buller decision and implied that that was the court decision he was referring to. That was clearly misleading the House and the situation has only been compounded by the comments made here today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked a supplementary question and a reply was given that did address the question. It might not have satisfied the member but that is why we have a question and answer session in the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You put your finger on it when you said that is why we have a question and answer session in the House. We are in our second day now and you are allowing the Minister to get away with treating this House with the greatest frivolity and contempt. Frankly if that is what question time is for then we are all wasting our time here at enormous expense to the public. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that in Australia a few years ago if the Speaker allowed one supplementary question that was regarded as a revolution. In this Parliament members have ample opportunity to ask supplementary questions—that is how they can challenge Ministers. But the point is that the Speaker cannot put words into Ministers’ mouths. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You cannot put answers into Ministers’ mouths but there is a range of Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings—and we do not need to get into what Australia does with regard to this matter—that require a certain exactitude and honesty from a Minister. When a Minister has contempt for Parliament then I think it behoves you to allow other members to reflect on his personality and on his degree of honesty and veracity. That is the only way we will regulate matters and get some control and disclosure in this House. Otherwise it is a waste of Parliament’s time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do everything in this House within the Standing Orders not outside them. 
Stephen Franks 
: Given the Minister’s referral to the Buller case as if it governed a case under section 18 of the Conservation Act does he still think that business closures job losses and public-spirited elderly folk shivering in the dark should not be relevant to his discretions over the use by a hydro scheme of a couple of hundred hectares of regenerating kahikatea broom and gorse; if not what level of economic and social misery does he need before it becomes the “incredibly important and unique situation” he told National Radio he would need before seeking any change in his discretions? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have the privilege of being the Minister of Conservation and my responsibility—and indeed my statutory duty—is to be an advocate for the conservation estate which is something that is very fundamental to the whole ethos of being a New Zealander. I am not prepared to see that estate die a death by a thousand cuts. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister now accept that his statement on National Radio that this particular site and project had already been to the High Court and had been rejected was wrong and a mistake and will he apologise to National Radio listeners; and can he also explain to the House why he did not correct his statement at the time rather than waiting for 2 weeks? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer the first part of the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As I explained yesterday in this House I was referring to the type of project represented by the Dobson dam. If that member had been listening properly right at the start of my answer to question 4 yesterday he would have heard me say that if anyone had formed the impression that I was talking about Dobson I apologised. I used the words “I apologise” and I stand by them. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House again to table the transcript of Mr Carter’s interview on National Radio. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the official Department of Conservation report that contradicts Mr Chris Carter’s statement about the conservation status of the— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the fact that successive conservation Ministers have blocked access to the vast conservation estate for energy projects including access to our extensive coal reserves access for hydro schemes including both Ngakawau and Dobson and access for the lower Clutha-Beaumont proposal based on an obscure island in the Clutha River visited by deer and goats does he as the Minister of Conservation accept any responsibility whatsoever for the lack of generation in this country and the looming power crisis that it is facing? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: There are a myriad of questions there but I would like to address just two of them. First I remind that member and all other members of the House that I have the privilege of being the Minister of Conservation and that is the area I am responsible for. Secondly I have in front of me a document from the Ministry of Economic Development on current industry proposals for the development of energy resources totalling 1624 megawatts. On that very comprehensive list there is no mention of the Dobson dam anywhere. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that in this case the Minister just misunderstood the question he was asked. He said he was asked a myriad of questions but he was actually asked only one question. He was asked given the fact that the Department of Conservation has stopped numerous energy schemes whether he accepts any responsibility for this year’s energy crisis. That is the question he was asked. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would just like to say that I will be saying prayers for rain as I hope everybody else in the House will as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I think the Minister could try again with the answer to that question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I remind the House that my responsibility is to be the Minister of Conservation. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: In the light of that answer can we take it that this Minister is publicly rejecting the concept of collective Cabinet responsibility or is he saying this Labour Cabinet as a whole does not care about the fact that we are to have an energy crisis this year? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Like all New Zealanders I am very keen to see that the people of our country have surety of supply with energy. At the same time my specific responsibility is as the Minister of Conservation and I am very proud to be an advocate for that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that when you made a ruling on this question just a little while ago you referred to Australia. I ask you whether on the issue of ministerial answers you would have regard to a recent question time in the House of Commons when in relation to an oral question about Iraq back-bench Labour members called their senior Ministers liars and deceivers as being some sort of precedent for this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not because I do not intend to follow that Parliament’s practice if members are saying that sort of thing.