Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 25 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13682. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Has he or his Office sought an assurance from the Minister of Conservation that he did not know about the existence of the draft submission prepared by the Department of Conservation in early July relating to theRuataniwha Dam before 17 September 2013; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): No; an assurance was not required because the Minister had advised this House in his answers to a number of questions that he had not seen the leaked draft submission until Tuesday 17 September and I take the Minister at his word. The Minister was aware that the Department of Conservation was working on a submission. He was not aware of the content of the leaked draft submission until Tuesday 17 September. My office was advised by the Minister’s office on Tuesday 17 September that the leaked draft submission was never sent to the Minister.Hon David Cunliffe: Why does he take at his word the Minister of Conservation’s statement from Tuesday last week: “I did not know that this draft document even existed until this morning.”; if that were just proven to be incorrect what action will he as Prime Minister take?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said I take the member at his word. It would not be unusual for a Minister to ask to see a departmental submission.Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Prime Minister concerned about reports that an official working on the Department of Conservation’sRuataniwha Dam submissions has resigned as a result of his Minister’s involvement?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no evidence that that claim is true.Hon David Cunliffe: Exactly why does the Prime Minister think that the Director-General of the Department of Conservation or senior managers would email senior staff that the Minister is “concerned” with the submission given that his Minister said in answer to whether he had raised concerns: “Did I give an indication? No I did not.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister receives weekly departmental reports. This is not unusual. In that departmental report I am advised there were two sentences in it regarding lodging a submission in the name of the director-general. The Minister asked to see a final submission before it was made. On Wednesday 31 July the Minister received a full briefing on the final submission. The leaked draft report appeared on Tuesday 17 September which was the first time the Minister had seen the leaked draft.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by his statement “I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action ifnecessary”; if so will he ask the Minister of Conservation Nick Smith to resign if it is proven that he indicated to the Department of Conservation that it should change its submission or if it is shown that his statements to this House or to the media are incorrect?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Whatever the details the member thinks he is going to release or divulge I would hope that at the same time he will divulge the final version of his CV.Hon David Cunliffe: Is it true that a draft submission from the Ministry for Primary Industries expressed concerns over the economics of theRuataniwha Dam but that the final submission reversed this finding; if so why was this 180-degree turn made and which Ministers and/or their staff were involved in any way?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no advice on that matter. I think the member can be reassured though that all issues around theRuataniwha Dam will be dealt with by the statutory processes that apply to a large project that has environmental and economic impact.Dr Russel Norman: Can the Acting Prime Minister explain to the House how it was possible for Nick Smith to say that he did not know the submission even existed until 17 September yet the briefing note from 29 July includes a discussion of the very same submission?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I understand it as Dr Smith has answered in the House the note on 29 July said that the department was making a submission. He then asked to see the final submission which is a legitimate perfectly normal activity by any Minister of any department.Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister explain how it is possible to have a discussion about a submission—and the evidence shows that there was a discussion on 29 July—yet the Minister says that he did not know that the submission even existed until 17 September? How is it possible to have a discussion about a submission you do not know exists?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again as I understand it the departmental weekly report said that the department was making a submission. The Minister had not seen that submission. When the department showed him a submission a couple of days later as the final submission he saw that submission. The draft the member is referring to appeared some time later on 17 September which was the leaked draft submission not the final submission. It does not matter how hard the member digs there is no conspiracy here. It is pretty straightforward. The Minister asked to see a submission and he saw it.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that it may seem a fine point and so you may not agree with my point of order but there is a difference between whether you have seen a copy of it or whether you know—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I have heard quite enough. The member can use further supplementary questions if he wants further detail from the Acting Prime Minister. The question was whether the Prime Minister can explain and the Acting Prime Minister attempted to explain.