Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16009] 
9.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for the Environment 
: How does he reconcile his statement in the House last Thursday “I have never denied the existence of a list of major infrastructure projects” with his 20 September response to an Official Information Act request “I am advised that no specific list of major projects suitable for non-local decision making process has been part of the RMA review process. My office therefore holds no such list.”; an email from his office on 28 September “neither the Minister nor the Ministry for the Environment holds a list of projects suitable for non-local decision making.” and the 24 June 2004 Ministry for the Environment paper entitled “Package of Improvements to the Resource Management Act” of which page 11 entitled “Possible candidates for non-local decision making with the RMA” lists 38 projects? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Easily. The existence of potential projects does not mean that the Government has a particular view of them. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked how the Minister reconciles his various statements. It was not a question about how the projects might have been put together; it was about an Official Information Act request and a list. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister answered that with the first word: “Easily.” He then went on to add a little extra. He did not have to add anything if he did not want to. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain—noting that the only difference between the wording of the Official Information Act request and the actual document was that one referred to “possible projects” and the other to “suitable projects”—the difference between the words “possible” and “suitable” and how that justified his saying the document never existed? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would like to help the member if I could but it is not possible to characterise the request of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society in the way he would like. The society did not ask for a general list of projects or for a list of possible projects. Instead it asked for a list of projects that the Government regarded as suitable for a particular Resource Management Act consent process which I might add—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is twice the member has interjected: firstly in the second person and secondly with a comment that was out of order. He will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: We are entitled to interject. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am asking the Minister to continue. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I am entitled to interject. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well you are entitled to interject but you were wrong. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Such a list did not exist and does not exist. 
Dave Hereora 
: What reports has the Minister seen about other proposals for large or complex projects under the Resource Management Act? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have seen the following comment made by Mr Guy Salmon a high-ranking National Party list candidate in 2002:“But efforts to curb people’s right to object as floated by Nick Smith National’s new environment spokesman would cut across the grain of being a New Zealander and in practice would not make much difference to the cost and delays which business applicants face.” This is in response to National’s policy to fast track large projects— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At that point the Minister has gone far outside the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am concerned that you allowed that question and answer to proceed. This is a very serious matter over a Minister having broken the law—that is the Official Information Act—by retaining papers he knew to exist and then denying their existence; and he has been caught out. That is a very serious matter for this Parliament. It is not a matter to be trifled with particularly from the Chair by your allowing highly partisan supplementary questions that are out of order or bear no relationship to the primary question. I ask that you regard this matter as seriously as Parliament does. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I certainly regard every question asked in this Parliament as serious. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister in answer to my last supplementary question say the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society request for the information used the words “regarded by the Government” when those words do not exist in the Official Information Act request? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a case here where the Minister appears to have broken the law and continues to offer statements that directly contradict the facts. You cannot expect members to sit here listening to a discussion about legislation that the House passed—the Official Information Act which is a vital tool for the Opposition where Parliament is the only place where we can exercise real accountability for how that Act has been used—when a Minister of the Crown makes statements that directly contradict the facts that have been presented about a dozen times in this House in the last two question times. In that context I think you could show some forbearance for members feeling motivated about it and interjecting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind members interjecting but they will not make the comments that the member made. As a senior member he knows that he cannot make those comments. The member did not even wait for the Minister to reply. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I will re-ask the question because the Minister did not have the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question has been answered. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is an important question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is fair enough. The member may re-ask the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In his last response why did the Minister say that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society request included the words “Government regarded” when no such words exist in that request? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: My office complied accurately with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society request under the Official Information Act. Its request was for a list of projects that the Government deemed suitable for non local decision-making. The ministry has never assessed any list of infrastructure projects for their suitability or non-suitability for any particular Resource Management Act process existing or imagined. For this reason I correctly advised the society that my office had no such list. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. When the Minister said the reason for him not accepting the request under the Official Information Act was that it included the words “Government regarded”. My question was very simple: why did the Minister say that was the reason when the written request under the Official Information Act never used those words? I simply ask the Minister to answer my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister was endeavouring to do that and the member interrupted him with a point of order. I will hear the Minister’s final part of his answer. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I had finished my answer. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. I asked why he told the House that the words “regarded by the Government” were in the request under the Official Information Act when they were not. I do not think the House has received any explanation as to why he said that when it does not exist. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: An interjection was made over the top of the Minister’s final answer. Perhaps the Minister might like to give that final sentence of his answer where I thought he had addressed the question. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The ministry has never assessed any list of infrastructure projects for their suitability or non-suitability for any particular processes under the Resource Management Act. For this reason the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society was correctly advised that my office held no such list because I tell Dr Smith no such list exists. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does the Minister again say in this House that no such list existed and say in an email that no such list existed within the Ministry for the Environment when I have in my hand a letter with the Ministry for the Environment letterhead dated 24 June that contains very specifically a list of those projects under the title “Possible candidates for non local decision-making under the RMA”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The member will recall that I answered that question quite specifically last Thursday and I will repeat that answer for him. “I am advised that a list entitled ‘Possible candidates for non local decision-making under the RMA’ ” has never been discussed by Cabinet. I was further advised that “a list with that title which had been compiled by the Ministry of Economic Development for other purposes was erroneously included” in a draft Resource Management Act discussion paper while that paper was being written. I was also advised that “it was removed from the draft document because in the view of the ministry it was misleading as to the Government’s view”—which it does not hold—“about any of these projects.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister recall the statement made by former Minister Lianne Dalziel when she resigned and he replaced her in which she said: “The standard for a Minister is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth”; if so does he believe his initial denying that the document existed and then last week denying that he ever had denied the document existed fits with the standard set by Lianne Dalziel? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: There is no inconsistency in the statements that I have made. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the original Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society request under the Official Information Act for the documents and particularly the list that was part of the officials’ paper on the Resource Management Act review. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the written response from the Minister saying that the document did not exist. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the email from the Minister’s office stating that the document did not exist and that the ministry did not have it either. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I also seek leave of the House to table the actual paper—the Ministry for the Environment paper of 24 June 2004—that includes the list of 38 projects. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I seek leave of the House to table a National Party news release from Guy Salmon criticising Dr Smith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the process of that exchange I think it appeared to everyone who was listening that the Minister misled the House—and it is open to debate whether that was deliberate or accidental. In answer to one question he said that the request under the Official Information Act included specific words. Another member of the House quoted the request under the Official Information Act which did not include those words. That is a pretty obvious case of the House being misled or the Minister being mistaken. He has the capacity under the Standing Orders to correct that now or as soon as he is aware that he has misled the House and I invite him to do so. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Firstly a member cannot raise by way of a point of order a charge of misleading the House. If the member wants to bring a breach of privilege claim then he can. Secondly I suggest that the Opposition is getting its knickers in a total twist over something quite simple as a synonym—deemed suitable and regarded suitable. If that is to be standard that is all very well but we will apply that with great pleasure to the National Party and its policy utterances. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In the first sentence of the member’s point of order he said that it may open something to debate. It may well do so. There are ways in which I can be advised of particular discrepancies and those can be followed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister has again asserted that the request under the Official Information Act included the word “regarding”. I seek the leave of the House to read the request so the House can be clear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to read that document. Is there any objection? There is.