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: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10208. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When did he first learn that the Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter had spoken to applicants for a water conservation order on the Hurunui River suggesting they freeze that application and what action if any did he subsequently take? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yesterday. The Prime Minister’s office then talked to the Minister’s office to establish the facts of the situation. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can he guarantee that prior to yesterday he had not received any reports or correspondence alerting him to the fact that David Carter had asked the applicants for the water conservation order to freeze it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The facts of the matter as I understand them are that in conjunction with the Hurunui Mayor Garry Jackson and Bede O’Malley chair of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy steering group the Minister of Agriculture discussed with all parties involved in the water conservation order process including the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the possibility of an integrated approach to try to avoid the issue’s escalating to the Environment Court. This collaborative approach was undertaken in an attempt to avoid the combative and expensive court route and reflects the approach recommended by the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. All parties were initially positive about this approach but subsequently some withdrew their support and decided to proceed with the Environment Court action. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of that answer which confirms the fact that the Minister of Agriculture approached the parties before they went to the Environment Court does he stand by the statement he made in the House yesterday that it was a “wild and unproven” allegation for me to bring this matter to his attention? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the unproven element of the allegation was that somehow the Minister was acting out of personal interest. Of course he was not; he was acting as the Minister of Agriculture trying to bring together a collaborative strategy to get a better result for the management of water in Canterbury. That is what we would expect the Minister of Agriculture to be doing. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he concerned by the contradiction between David Carter’s answer to written question No. 14809 from October last year when he said that he had not discussed the water conservation order process with any of the parties associated with the Hurunui River and his press release of yesterday which said that he had? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister of Agriculture has been quite open publicly and with the Prime Minister about the facts of the matter. The member should take up the issue of the parliamentary question with the Minister. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it an acceptable standard of behaviour for a Minister to answer a written question “No.” when asked whether he had discussed with any of the parties plans for an appeal against the application for a water conservation order on the Hurunui River and then in his press release yesterday to say that he had discussed it with the parties? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We would not want to jump to conclusions on the basis of that member’s description but all Ministers should strive for accuracy in answering parliamentary questions. I think the important point here is that the Minister was attempting to adopt the collaborative approach that has been behind the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. In the end that did not work and the parties ended up choosing the expensive court process. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you do not agree with the tabling of questions generally but the Deputy Prime Minister has just said in his answer that he does not take my word for what the question said. So I seek leave to table the answer to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister did not actually say that he did not take the member’s word at all. I did not take that implication from what he said. The problem I have is that the written answer is available to all members. I hesitate to seek leave to table such a document when it is readily available to all members. The member has more supplementary questions. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider something. We are seeing examples at question time where a questioner says: “the Minister said this” or “the Prime Minister said that” when what is being said is clearly not correct. We saw it just then and you picked up on it in the point of order where in actual fact the statement made by point of order was not strictly correct. It gets read into the  
Hansard 
 and interpreted by the media as something entirely different. I accept that it is harder in question time but I think to introduce incorrect statements on points of order is a mistake. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need to hear further on this. I do not think we need to take further time of the House. I respect the member’s point of order because it was to do with the order of the House. But I believe that the member is reading more into this situation than deserves to be read into it. I think that what the Deputy Prime Minister said was available for interpretation and that a member could have felt that it was questioning the member’s word. Therefore I do not consider that Dr Russel Norman was misrepresenting the situation when he then sought my view as to whether he could table the answer to a written question. It is a very marginal case but I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister impugned the member’s integrity; neither do I believe that the member was totally wrong in feeling that the Deputy Prime Minister might have done. I think that on this occasion it is not worth taking more time of the House. The member’s questions have been dealt with with what I think was a lot of sincerity by the Deputy Prime Minister in trying to answer the member’s questions. The member has further supplementary questions should he wish to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A similar problem happened yesterday I think as well. I think that this problem could be resolved if members when quoting from answers to written questions gave the number of the question. That means that members can go back and trace it. It is quite hard to find it otherwise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness to Dr Russel Norman I say that if I remember correctly he gave the number of the question. I think on this matter we are all being just a little bit sensitive. The member is pursuing a matter of interest to him with his supplementary questions in a fairly effective way. I ask him to continue. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that under the resource consent on the Hon David Carter’s farm on the Hurunui River the irrigation is required to stop when the water in the river goes below a minimum flow and that if the Hurunui irrigation scheme goes ahead the water in that river will be maintained above that flow and the irrigation on Mr Carter’s farm will be enhanced as a result? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not aware of the details of the consent on the Minister’s farm. I am aware that he has been involved with discussions around irrigation in Canterbury for a number of years. The circumstances of his farm ownership are well known. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Minister of Agriculture has had any involvement in any discussions in Cabinet or Cabinet committees regarding the changes to Environment Canterbury? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister for Agriculture has an interest both in his capacity as Minister and in his capacity as a Canterbury member of Parliament. He has participated as most Ministers in Cabinet have in work on general policy matters relating to Environment Canterbury. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked whether he could guarantee whether the Minister of Agriculture had been involved in any of those discussions in Cabinet and Cabinet committees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer quite carefully and I believe he just told the House that the Minister had been. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society to the Prime Minister dated December last year regarding the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture in the water conservation order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a file note from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s South Island manager regarding the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture in the water conservation order process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a map that illustrates the relationship of the Hon David Carter’s farm to the Hurunui irrigation project area. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.