9. Question No. 9—ConservationHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 9—Conservation9. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Acting Minister of Conservation): Yes.Hon Jacqui Dean: When she said on 27 October Under the Department of Conservation process huts were dismantled roofing iron taken off and timber [taken off]." was she aware of the Wharekahika Hut which was burnt to the ground and shows the whole hut completely burnt including roofing iron and timber in Te Urewera?SPEAKER: Order! Sorry members may not know but that particular incident is before the courts and is therefore sub judice and members should not ask—or the Minister should not answer about that case.Chris Bishop: Point of order Mr Speaker. That matter is not before the court. As I understand it what is before the court is an issue of judicial review about the actions of the Department of Conservation (DOC) or the authority for the area. As I understand it there is no factual dispute about the status or what has happened to the huts in the Ureweras and what my colleague is asking about is what the Minister of Conservation said in the House last week. Now Ministers have to be accountable for what Ministers have said in the House. My colleague is simply asking the Acting Minister to account for what the Minister of Conservation has said in the House. That is not a matter that is as I understand it a factual dispute before the court so therefore it doesn't violate the sub judice rule.SPEAKER: Well I've got the court's ruling in front of me and my understanding of it—and the way I am ruling—is that it is and that question is out of order.Chris Bishop: Point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A further point of order. Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker in doing so are you taking into account Standing Order 116(3)(a) which "balances the privilege of freedom of speech against the public interest in maintaining confidence in the judicial resolution of disputes" because members in this Parliament have privilege to ask about important matters—well they have privilege generally. But in particular they have privilege to ask about important matters of public policy and I would put it to you sir that this is an extremely important matter. I do not believe that the resolution of the dispute is impeded in any way by my colleague asking about what the Minister has said in Parliament. I can't see how it could possibly impede the proper resolution of the matter before the courts or impede the judicial function generally for the Minister to be accountable for what she has said in Parliament.Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order Mr Speaker I note that the member didn't quote Standing Order 116(2)—the Standing Order that comes immediately before that one—that says that if any member wishes to raise something that could be before the courts they have to do so in writing to the Speaker before doing so.Chris Bishop: Well just in response to this this has been—just for the ventilation of the House this has been the subject of discussion between the Speaker and the Opposition.SPEAKER: In response to the point of order in terms of the free speech that you're talking about it's the very reason why it should be exercised carefully particularly in relation to court cases. So I am standing by the ruling that I have made that that question is out of order.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. Standing Order 116(3)(b) I think is also very relevant here. Now I understand your ruling but I think this is a very important matter of the constitutional separation between the legislature and the judiciary. I also have the court ruling here. The key part of paragraph (b) is the question of the risk of prejudicing a matter before the court. Now my colleague is not actually arguing or questioning any matter before the court. She is asking about what the Minister knew when she knew it and how she found out about it and how that relates to an answer she gave in this House last month. I think that is a very important matter. The other thing I would say is that the role of the media in this is different from our obligations in this House but seven different media outlets have reported a matter of fact. Huts in the Te Urewera were burnt down. Now the question then goes—and that is not disputed by the courts. The question that Jacqui Dean wants to ask the Minister is how that fact compares with statements she made in the House last month. It has nothing to do with the matter before the court.SPEAKER: Yeah I'll—the Hon David Parker. Hon David Parker: Mr Speaker these can be difficult issues and I don't know enough of the factual circumstance to be able to assist you as to whether you are making a correct ruling or not but it sounds to me as if the Speaker with advice from the Clerk is carefully considering these issues and has been in dialogue with the National Party in advance. I would suggest that if the Speaker is in doubt the Speaker would be well able to consider being careful here persisting with his ruling or with your ruling and the matter can always be addressed subsequently by the National Party with you beyond question time and raised in a future question time if the Opposition feels strongly about it with further consideration at that time. SPEAKER: OK I'd like this to be the final word on the matter. Two things: while the member is asking the question—and it is very clear in her mind as attested to by the Hon Michael Woodhouse—what members won't know is the nature of the Minister's answer and whether or not that would be a breach of the sub judice. That's one point. The second point is that there needs to be mutual respect between the Parliament and the court and I think in respect to the court that that ruling should stand. My original ruling ruling the question out of order for that purpose should stand.Chris Bishop: Point of order.SPEAKER: If it's a new point of order that's fine. But if it's not—Chris Bishop: It's not new but—SPEAKER: Yes and we could be here for several hours debating the very issue which I don't want to do.Chris Bishop: Well I'm trying to be helpful. What is the scope of your ruling? Is the ruling that the Opposition is unable to ask any question about the issue of the huts in the Ureweras whilst the substantive application or judicial review question is before the court because as I understand it an interim injunction has been granted. It may be some months sir before the substantive hearing happens. We are then placed in an invidious position in the Opposition because this is clearly an issue of public interest and I would argue of public policy importance and the job of this House sir is to question the executive about matters of public policy and we want to be able to do that job. So is the scope of your ruling that we are unable to ask questions about this particular matter while the matter is before the courts because I think that would be problematic.SPEAKER: I will judge each question on its own merits.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A new point of order? Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes it is. SPEAKER: The Hon Michael Woodhouse. Hon Michael Woodhouse: It is in respect of your ruling but it goes to a broader question. If I understand what you have said—SPEAKER: No.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Now this is really important Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: Yes yes. Hon Michael Woodhouse: —and I just want to make the point that what you've said—SPEAKER: No it's finished. Hon Michael Woodhouse: —was that the—SPEAKER: No. Hon Michael Woodhouse: I think if you heard the—SPEAKER: That is not a new point of order.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well you don't know because I haven't raised it yet.SPEAKER: Well the way you started it off it's definitely relitigating my ruling.Hon Michael Woodhouse: OK I'll start off in a different way. Is it your ruling—SPEAKER: OK. A new point of order the Hon Michael Woodhouse. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it now the ruling of the Speaker that a question that is otherwise in order would be rendered out of order because of the manner in which the Minister might reply? The Minister is always free to say it is not in the public interest to answer that question because matters may be subject to court proceedings but the way you worded your ruling was that the question itself is ruled out even though it might be in order.SPEAKER: That's just relitigating my ruling—Hon Members: No it's not.SPEAKER: It is. Is there a further supplementary?Hon Jacqui Dean: When did she become aware that the answer to question No. 7 regarding Te Urewera that she gave to the House on 27 October was incorrect?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: On behalf of the Minister it would be inappropriate for me to comment on matters before the courts.Hon Jacqui Dean: What advice did she receive from her DOC officials before she made the statement in the House: "Let me also be very clear: there was no burning of huts."?SPEAKER: The—yeah I'm going to have to rule that one out of order as well.Hon Jacqui Dean: Who has been providing her with advice prior to answering questions in the House on the Te Urewera huts?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: The Department of Conservation."