Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13368. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Conservation: Did he discuss the Tukituki Catchment Proposal with any Department of Conservation senior management in the two months prior to 2 August 2013; if so with whom?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): This proposal from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has been applied for because it believes it will benefit its community by increasing minimum river flows improving water quality and increasing the prosperity from irrigation in that region. Of course I discussed this proposal with officials because I had important decisions to make with the Minister for the Environment and Cabinet papers on whether it was a nationally significant proposal and on the appointment of a board of inquiry. These discussions were with the Director-General of Conservation and senior Department of Conservation staff. Frankly I would have been negligent in my role as Minister if I had not discussed those important statutory decisions with my senior staff.Dr Russel Norman: Did he give any indication to the Department of Conservation on the direction or content of its submission on the plan change proposal; if so what was that direction?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The decision about the submission that was made to the board of inquiry by the Department of Conservation was made by the deputy director-general. I was informed of the debate that was going on within the department about thenature of its submission but it was a decision for the department. The important real issue is that the board of inquiry has a broad range of views and technical expertise to make a good decision for Hawke’s Bay about what is best for its water management. I am perfectly confident that that board with over 300 submissions with a range of views will make a good decision.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very simple—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I agree with the point that the member is going to raise. Can I invite the member to ask that question again.Dr Russel Norman: Did he give any indication to the Department of Conservation on the direction or content of its submission on the plan change proposal; if so what was that indication?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I said the department kept me informed of the debate that was going on within the department about the nature of its submission but the decision about the submission was made by the deputy director-general.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister gave pretty much the same answer to pretty much the same question. The question was about what indication the Minister gave to the department not about what the department said to the Minister. The Minister has not addressed that question at all.Mr SPEAKER: And I agree. I am going to invite the member to ask the question for the third time.Dr Russel Norman: Did he give any indication to the Department of Conservation on the direction or content of its submission on the plan change proposal; if so what was that indication?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say again that I was informed by the Department of Conservation about the internal debate that was going on within the department. The department then made its decision.Dr David Clark: Answer the question.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have—I have. The member is asking whether I made the decision. No I did not. Did I give an indication? No I did not. Did the department inform me of the range of views? Yes it did.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Minister saying that he gave no indication whatsoever to the Department of Conservation on his views on the direction or content of its submission on the plan change proposal?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The decision about the submission that was made by the Department of Conservation was made by the deputy director-general. I did not give the department an indication of what that submission would be.Dr Russel Norman: In any of his meetings with the Department of Conservation around its submission on the plan change proposal did he make any mention of his and the Government’s objective of facilitating water storage outlined in his 2010 speech “Better Water Management”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My best recollection—because I meet with the department staff every week—is that there were five meetings in which the issue of my role in the board of inquiry was raised. In four of those the only issue that was discussed was whether the matter met a national significance test and secondly who should be on the board of inquiry. There was only one meeting and it was simply a matter of the department informing me of its submission.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Minister now saying that he had knowledge of the Department of Conservation’s submission but he made no comment whatsoever as to his views on that submission?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I meet with my department staff every single week. At those meetings we typically cover 20 issues. At one of those meetings I was informed of the department’s approach in its submission on the irrigation proposal. No I did not at any stage say to the department officials “Hey look this Government thinks that irrigation needs to be expanded.” as much as I said to the department—and in my discussions with the Minister for the Environment—that we need to make sure that the board of inquiry process was robust to ensure that the right decision will be made for the community of Hawke’s Bay.Dr Russel Norman: In his discussion with officials around the board of inquiry process did he tell them that he did not expect them to make a submission that would put him in a difficult position—as the final decision-maker—after the board of inquiry process and hence they should make a submission that did not take strong views one way or the other?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make clear that earlier in the year when I first became Minister of Conservation I did have a very direct conversation with the director-general about boards of inquiry and in that discussion I said that it put the Minister in a very difficult position if when appointing a board of inquiry it was then making recommendations to you as the final decision-maker—for instance in the King Salmon case—but at the same time you were making decisions advocating a particular view. And I said to the director-general that in those circumstances the department needed to be very cautious about its submissions.Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept that the effect of that conversation is that the Department of Conservation is unable to do its statutory job which is to advocate for the environment because its Minister is telling it not to make submissions that take a strong stand to protect the rivers of this country—something that he is supposed to be protecting?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly the member is confused. Primary responsibility for water quality rests with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and that member will remember many occasions when I held that portfolio when questions on water quality were directed in that way. In respect of the department’s responsibilities they are for public conservation land they are for fresh water and they are for New Zealand’s special species. It is not the department’s role—and nor is the best expertise in Government on freshwater quality within the Department of Conservation.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the 32-page suppressed submission that the Minister prevented the department from submitting.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am going to object because the document was not suppressed; it is a draft—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! Then the way forward is that I will put the leave and any member can so object.Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is not the point. The point is that the member has asked to release a document that has a certain description on it that is inaccurate. It might be up to the House to say “No you can’t release it.” but no such document exists and therefore it puts us in a position of looking like we are blocking something.Grant Robertson: How do you know that?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Because this is a departmental draft Grant not a suppressed document.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Every member of this House has a right to seek leave to table a document. Clearly Dr Norman does not believe it is in the public domain. Having these speeches from the Government does not help the order of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any more help from the honourable member. Every member has a right to seek leave to table a document. It is absolutely paramount that the member who seeks that leave describes the document with absolute accuracy. I am inviting the member Dr Russel Norman to stand to describe it accurately and then I will determine whether to put leave to the House.Dr Russel Norman: I am seeking leave. This is a two-part document: the departmental submission document dated 31 July 2013 which went to the Minister and the document that goes with it calledAttachment to Plan Change 6: Hawke’s Bay Regional Plan Reasons for Submission which is the draft that was not submitted even though it was written by his department.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think both documents have been adequately explained. Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be so tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the final submission made by the Department of Conservation on the plan change which is one paragraph repeated twice submitted with the permission no doubt of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that. That is all that is—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave to table the full submission that the Department of Conservation made which is a lot more than what the previous member referred to—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is so sought for the Minister to table the full submission. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.