by Russel Norman
Another day in the House and more obfuscation from David Carter.
Previously I asked him a written question 14809 (2009) 29 Sept 2009:
Has he discussed an appeal on the special tribunal’s report on a Water Conservation Order application on the Hurunui River with any party; if so, who, when and what was the nature of that discussion?
Answer: No.
Today he gave a personal explanation to the House in which he stated that he had indeed discussed suspending the appeal with all the parties involved in the appeal of the water conservation order on the Hurunui. Which is much the same as he said in his release.
So then what about his answer to 14809, which clearly is wrong on his own evidence?
Carter says that it was “not as clear as it could have been” (or words to that effect as I don’t have the transcript, only my notes).
Actually, he does himself a disservice - it was perfectly clear. He said “No”. It couldn’t be clearer. He didn’t tell the truth.
It seems the first casuality of the war for water and irrigation is the truth.
As for the rest of the potential conflict of interest that I blogged about previously, Carter’s personal explanation simply repeated what we already know – that his Hurunui consent has minimum flow regime on it. He says that he does not intend to apply for more water and that the minimum flow requirements have never been invoked. Which changes exactly nothing – he may apply for more water at some point and at some point if the Hurunui Irrigation Scheme goes ahead Carter may benefit as otherwise the flow may go below the minimum.
In either cases he should have declared a potential conflict of interest to the Cabinet Secretary as the Cabinet Manual requires him to declare when he may reasonably be perceived to gain or lose financially from a government decision.
UPDATE 21-4-10 – you can watch Carter’s personal explanation here.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Tue, April 20th, 2010
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Therein lies the truth.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Brownlie isn’t the only one who can dig holes, and this looks like a potential big one!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
There appears to be a truth-virus afflicting the Government.
Quick, get them an antidote before they commit so much perjury that the Parliament must be dissolved … no, wait, that would be a good thing, wouldn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Katie-You reckon they need more rope…?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
I watched Carter’s “personal explanation” yesterday, and it was one of the most limp efforts I have ever seen in Parliament.
As far as the conflict of interest goes, he just doesn’t seem to get it. He doesn’t have to intend to apply to take more water to have a conflict. He doesn’t need to have had low-flow retrictions imposed by ECan on his water take to have a conflict.
The mere possibility that he could apply to take more water gives him a conflict. The mere possibility that the low-flow conditions in his water consent could be invoked gives him a conflict. And the likelihood that if the Hurunui irrigation dam is built his property will become more valuable because its water take will be more secure and any application for an increased take more likely to be approved gives him a conflict.
His explanation of why he answered “No” to written question 14809 was even weaker. He claimed that he misinterpreted the question becasue it was asked in conjunction with a number of other written questions to him by Russel around the same time. That’s just rubbish. The question was perfectly clear – did he discussed an appeal on the special tribunal’s report on a Water Conservation Order application on the Hurunui River with any party, or didn’t he?
He lied, and he effectively now admits he lied, which adds to the suspicion that he knew what he was doing at the time was dodgy as far as Ministerial propriety is concerned.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Yes but Toad, will anything come of it?
There’s no great gain in spotting lies from National MP’s, if nothing happens as a result.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
He was always going to slither out of the telling lies to Parliament bit. We’ll have to wait and see what the Auditor-General has to say on the conflict of interest issue. I suspect he’ll slither out of that one too, but its all more shit that damages the reputation of the Government.
That sort of shit accumulates, just as it did with Field, Benson-Pope and Peters under the last Government.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
You’ll need to watch your back, Toady, if you’re going to be a digger.
You might get a visit from Nick’s brothers.
(And it’s a natural fact that Cranes are the enemies of Toads).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Not crane flies though ‘fly. We toads eat them. Lucky you are a green fly.
I’ve just given The Sewer a windup by suggesting that Nick Smith’s “Crane” brother Tim should perhaps be imprisoned (and under Paul Quinn’s appalling Bill denied the vote) for his environmental crimes.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
The wingnuts responding to Toad over at The Sewer are something to behold.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks Bushbasher, I don’t want to divert the thread.
The worst there has now earned demerits:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)