Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionDyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14009. Text is subject to correction.]9.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills)to theMinister of Conservation: When was he first informed by the Department of Conservation that they were considering contributing to any submission on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal that might include nitrogen and phosphorous management?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation):The first full briefing on Tukituki was on 5 March and it confirmed the department’s role in the process and mentioned nitrogen and phosphorous management. The paper was very positive on the project saying it offered significant environmental and economic benefits. Let me quote directly what it said: “An increased and regulated low-flow level for the Tukituki River would mitigate the dry condition low-flows which affect native fish and in-stream biota. Water quality would be improved in the entire catchment”. If the member read that report she would understand why I was surprised at the content of the leaked draft submission which had a very different view on the effects of the project. This confirms that there were differing views within the department on the Tukituki project.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he tell the House in answer to a primary question on 24 September that he was first informed of the submission on 29 July when his weekly report of 20 May stated: “Further work is needed to determine the content of any Crown submission. The Department of Conservation has some concerns with the novel scientific approach for dealing with nitrogen and phosphorous and how this is translated into the plan provisions.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Very easily because the member only half quotes. What it said was that that was in respect of the option of a Crown submission. SubsequentlyCabinet made a decision not to proceed with a Crown submission. What I would also draw to the attention of the member is that the former report said that the Department of Conversation was very positive about the project. The member cannot half quote and needs to consider all the information.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he tell the House repeatedly that the first he was aware that the Department of Conservation was preparing a submission was on 29 July when his weekly report on 17 June stated: “At this stage it may be that the Department of Conservation is the only agency that will make a submission.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member half quotes again.Hon Ruth Dyson: I do not.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes you do. Let me see what the report on 17 June says. It says that the Department of Conservation may make a submission—may. It may. It does not say it is going to make a submission. The first report where the Department of Conservation confirmed it was going to make a submission was in the weekly report on 29 July.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he tell the House repeatedly that he asked the Department of Conversation to see its submission on 29 July when his weekly report of 24 June stated as an action point from his 17 June meeting: “Any Department of Conservation submission on this proposal needs to be OK’d by the Minister prior to it being submitted.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The word “any” says it all. When it said that any Department of Conservation submission would need to come to my office that makes it plain that at the time it had not decided either that it would make a submission or what would be in that submission.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he have Nicky Wagner ask a patsy question on 26 September in order for him to say that senior management had “not even read the submission prior to 29 July” when as he stated in written question 13184 “senior managers made amendments to or comments on the draft submission.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason the member’s question was so useful was that members opposite selectively ask for just some of the information. It is important if you are going to make a judgment to have all of the information. For instance can I quote the exact information from the Deputy Director-General of Conservation. She said of me that I did not play any role in her decision making that she made the decision about the submission that she did not know my view and that I never saw the leaked draft submission. The members opposite are effectively saying that Doris Johnston was not telling the truth. It is members opposite who are not telling the truth.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was actually going to raise a different point of order but do you consider the answer that Nick Smith gave to be in order?Mr SPEAKER: No. The accusation that the members opposite are not telling the truth is completely unparliamentary. The Minister will stand withdraw and apologise for that.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s primary answer he quoted from an official document dated 5 March. He is required to table that document.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member quoting from an official document?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I was going to seek leave anyway to table the official report I received on 5 March. It has been released under the Official Information Act.Mr SPEAKER: It will be tabled. It has been asked for. It is an official document.Document laid on the Table of the House.Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In answer to my last supplementary question the Minister repeated comments in relation to the deputy director-general’s quotes. They were entirely irrelevant actually interesting though they may be to the question that I asked about the question from Nicky Wagner—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard quite sufficient. Again I invite the member to go back and look at the tone of the way she asked the question. It was likely it gave great liberty to the Minister to then answer the question.Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order or in any way challenging a ruling I have just given?Hon Ruth Dyson: I am seeking clarification Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Points of order are not to be raised for points of clarification. The member was unhappy with the answer. I accept that. That happens frequently. The member asked a question referring to a question asked by Nicky Wagner. It was a patsy question. That gave liberty to the Minister to respond quite liberally.Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister think that theRuataniwha Dam promoted by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will solve the problem of low summer flows in the Tukituki River and is that not a problem caused by the regional council allocating more water for irrigation than the river can provide?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is certainly true that in that catchment and in a number of others water management historically has resulted inoverallocation. That is why the good work of my colleague Amy Adams and previously my own work on a national policy statement on water management seeks to put in place a stronger framework to prevent that sort ofoverallocation of water.