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: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8971. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Conservation given that the Auditor-General cited the Department of Conservation’s regional conservancy staff as the strength of the organisation and it is these very jobs that are being targeted for elimination? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it true that various jobs in the Department of Conservation are being renamed by Nick Smith as “rangers” so that Dr Smith can give the impression that front-line staff are not being cut at the Department of Conservation and is this the kind of spin that he expects from his Ministers? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and no are the answers to that question. I would refer the member to the statements by Al Morrison yesterday when he said in particular: “While I acknowledge the next few months will be a period of uncertainty for DOC staff and their families I am confident DOC will be able to maintain all its key outputs in species protection pest control and the provision of recreational facilities within the new streamlined organisational structure.” 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Just to confirm: his answer was yes to my question “Is it true that various jobs in the Department of Conservation are being renamed by Nick Smith as ‘rangers’ so that Dr Smith can give the impression that front-line staff are not being cut at the Department of Conservation?” 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. As I said yes to the first bit—they are being renamed as rangers—but no there is no spin involved. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that his Minister is moving the Department of Conservation to focusing more on being a business that makes money rather than a conservation-focused organisation is this what he expects from his Minister of Conservation and will the Prime Minister step in to rule out Department of Conservation staff having to wear corporate-sponsored uniforms and logos? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. I think what is happening within the Department of Conservation is that Al Morrison rightfully is actually leading the organisation to reflect the 21st century approach. If there are companies—as I think I saw in a clip last night on TV—that want to play a role in terms of conservation in New Zealand then that could be a welcome thing. If one goes overseas—as I am sure that member has done and as I do—you can see within national parks and things around the world that there actually are roles where corporations adopt highways national parks or whatever it might be and that money is actually used for the benefit of the people who go to those national parks. What would be so wrong about that? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Climate Change Issues given that according to Treasury New Zealand is now on track for a net emissions increase of up to 50 percent by 2020? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and I would point the member to the period of time when emissions really grew wildly in this country and that was under a Labour Government supported by the Greens. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he have confidence in his environment Minister given that Guy Salmon an ecologist a former National Party candidate co-author of the National Party’s Bluegreens vision statement and one of the architects of the Land and Water Forum said about his Minister: “This is the first time I have dealt with a Minister who has been wanting to lower environmental standards. This shouldn’t be happening in New Zealand.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and I would utterly reject that assertion by Mr Salmon. In fact the Minister cares passionately about the environment and is playing an important role to make sure that we are improving amongst other things water quality in New Zealand. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that Guy Salmon co-wrote the National Party’s Bluegreens vision statement why is Guy Salmon now denouncing the environmental performance of the National Government—has Guy Salmon changed or is it just that this Government’s second-term agenda is so toxic to the environment that Mr Salmon has been forced to speak out? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If the member wants to know what Guy Salmon thinks the member should ring Guy Salmon. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is this Government’s second-term toxic environmental agenda whether it is in the Department of Conservation climate change or Resource Management Act changes being driven by his Ministers or will he take personal responsibility for it? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I would utterly reject that there is a toxic environmental review. If there is anything toxic it is the fact that the Green Party decided to keep Brendan Horan’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why does he have confidence in the Minister of Education given that she repeatedly denied having been consulted on Lesley Longstone’s resignation and $425000 payout during question time yesterday and then snuck into the House at 9.55— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That question with the piece about “snuck into” is an unnecessary—[ 
Interruption 
] It is a reflection—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am trying to help the member get a legitimate answer to his question. But to suggest that a member who is not even here to defend herself “snuck into the House” adds I think an unnecessary imputation to that question. I would just invite the member to ask the question again. Remove that bit and it is a perfectly legitimate question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why does he have confidence in the Minister of Education given she repeatedly denied having been consulted on Lesley Longstone’s resignation and $425000 payout during question time yesterday and then came into the House at 9.55 p.m. last night to admit that she was? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the Minister on reflection decided that she did need to at least clarify her answers so she came in to correct them. That was the first available occasion that the House could allow her to do that and it is actually normal for people to have to correct answers. I have had to do it other Ministers have had to do it and the Leader of the Opposition has had to do it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The fact is that the Minister had considerable time to actually correct the misinformation to the House and to describe it at 9.55 as “snuck into” is totally a sound use of language and I think you cannot purely demand that people couch their questions in the framework of another’s very limited language. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is quite entitled to his opinion. I have a different opinion. The way the question was subsequently worded was I felt a far better way to word it—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The Prime Minister then subsequently answered it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister in his answer indicated that 9.55 was the first opportunity. Is it still within the Standing Orders to report progress in order to make a correction? It used to be the case to report progress from a Committee to seek leave to sit again and to make a fulsome apology at the right time rather than hiding in one’s office and popping down— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have no ability of knowing the— 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need the Prime Minister’s assistance. I have no knowledge of the diary of the Minister of Education or whether she had time available to come down earlier than that or not. I do not even know whether she was in Wellington. So from my point of view the only part I was objecting to was the words “snuck into”. Whether the Minister had had an opportunity to come down earlier that is for the Minister; it is not for the Speaker to know. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The advice I have is that the Minister came to the House before 6 o’clock tried to actually correct the statements before 6 o’clock and was advised by the Clerk that that was not possible and that she should come back before 10 o’clock. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am sure you will work with your staff so that Ministers are better advised in the future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can be absolutely assured that I will work very well with my staff. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely it would have occurred to you that if the Prime Minister is correct that the Minister was ready to make the change in her answer before 6 p.m. then why would it require until 9.55 p.m. to come to this House and give her explanation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Clerk advises that the House was in Committee at that time. A personal explanation cannot be made while the House is in Committee and the time that it came out of Committee was obviously at 9.55.