Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3806. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust “I’m sure someone will have a cursory look at it”; if so has he or his office investigated the funding? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As I said yesterday my office and the Minister for the Environment’s office had a quick look at the matters involved. We did not find anything that raised concerns to us. 
Grant Robertson 
: As part of the investigation by his office did they ask a deputy secretary of the Ministry for the Environment to explain her comment about the trust: “We remain deeply concerned at the level of professional fees being paid into this process; some of the costs charged also have us concerned.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not sure whether that question was directly asked. I think it is important to understand what happened in this process. I will tell you what happened in this process: a few hundred thousand dollars were paid to a trust so that a collaborative process could be used to sort out the problem. Actually the estimated cost for the Environmental Protection Authority to have dealt with it was $2.6 million. By the way Labour funded a $2.2 million contract with exactly the same organisation Ecologic Foundation for exactly this—environmental dispute resolution through the Ministry of Research Science and Technology—and if you did not use it for that instance what would you? By the way $2.2 million trumps $200000. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the $2.2 million contract he has just referred to went through a full open tender process unlike the money paid out to this trust? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is this. This is a comment from Peter Wilson the vice-president of Federated Mountain Clubs in relation to this issue— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The question simply asked whether the Prime Minister could confirm something and he said that he could not. Really that should be the end of the answer. 
Grant Robertson 
: As part of his office’s investigation did they review the decision by the independent panel of the Community Environment Fund to turn down funding for this trust on the basis of “high costs” and having “no clear strategy and no clear process” and did this cause him to question the decision of the then Minister for the Environment to directly fund the trust from ministry baseline funding knowing that? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No and I would reject that assertion. If one goes and actually looks at what has taken place and one goes and looks at Peter Wilson the vice-president of Federated Mountain Clubs he said: “I personally attended every single Mackenzie Forum meeting over a year and a half on behalf of my organisation … and I must say that the price of Guy Salmon’s … involvement … would have been cheap at twice the price.” And by the way it was about one-tenth of the cost of going through a court process. That is why the collaborative process works. I know lots of people who support the collaborative process because when it was set up for the Land and Water Forum Grant Robertson said: “The success of the Land and Water Forum has been that it has used a collaborative process that sees all players at the table ... This will be a big challenge for local and central government but offers the prospect of a whole new way of policy making that will be inclusive and durable.” What wise words from Mr Robertson! 
Grant Robertson 
: As part of his office’s investigation did they read the statement about the trust made by a Ministry for the Environment official that “Now they are looking to get more cash from the Community Environment Fund and pressure us into a quick decision.” in relation to a trust chaired by Jacqui Dean and does Government officials being pressured by a trust chaired by a National backbench MP give him any concern at all? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think when it comes to pressuring officials to spend money unwisely that member should go back and look at the whole history of the pledge card. But anyway going back to that for a moment the view of the Minister and many of those involved was quite clear: a collaborative approach was a much better way of going because it cost one-tenth of what going through a court process would have cost. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Has he seen any other reports in relation to the work of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have seen a report from Peter Wilson vice-president when he said this morning— 
Grant Robertson 
: You’ve already done that one. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No this is something different. You should enjoy the whole transcript. He said “This is utter tripe and a good example of why someone should check their facts before spinning stories. I’m disappointed that Grant Robertson took to grandstanding before fact-checking”. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Prime Minister think—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the honourable member. He has got a good voice but the level of noise was too high. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Prime Minister think that a trust launched at a National Party Bluegreens conference chaired by a National MP and directly funded by one of his Ministers after it was rejected by an independent panel meets the standards of transparency and accountability for spending taxpayer money? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and I think the member should check his facts. Let us understand what has taken place. In Otago there has been a substantial environmental issue about cubicle farming. There has been widespread community interest—as I understand it 5000 submissions. This was a process that collaboratively got all members of the community round the table at one time and did that for one-tenth of the cost of going through the courts. That is a lot cheaper and better than going through a court process. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Would he advise local MP Jacqui Dean that instead of working with her local mayors on the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust she should have introduced a bill to Parliament—overruling the Resource Management Act and the local councils—to allow a friendly developer to pick up millions in windfall gains and then pick up a $17000 political donation for her services an approach endorsed by Grant Robertson in the style of Clayton Cosgrove? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No that is not my advice. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table several documents. The first of those is an email from a deputy secretary for the environment to a staff member at Environment Canterbury saying “we remain deeply concerned at the level of professional fees being paid into this process; some of the costs charged also have us concerned.” This email was released under the Official Information Act. 
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. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave to table an email from a deputy secretary for the environment to another official at the Ministry for the Environment outlining the reasons why the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust was not funded under the Community Environment Fund including its high costs and that it had no clear strategy and no clear process. 
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. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table an email from a Ministry for the Environment official to other Ministry for the Environment officials saying about the trust “Now they are looking to get more cash from the CEF and pressure us into a quick decision.” 
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.